Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-25 23:19 | Report Abuse

While searching if there’s voting session on dual listing expenses approval (yet to found it), found the following:

https://disclosure.bursamalaysia.com/FileAccess/apbursaweb/download/?name=EA_GM_Attachments&id=6053

https://www.asiaasset.com/post/3408-capitaldynamics-sc

Very interesting :)

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 07:33 | Report Abuse

@Patient Investor - noted your advice re IF you want to sell......

Good that you do your independent research now :)

I have commented re the AGM in 2012 results....

iCAP got the SC's nod re dual listing - till today I was not sure TTB was jumping the gun and acted beyond his responsibility when applying to SC....there was no doubt on SC approval but did he got shareholders' approval in the first place? In this case, I am not sure whether SC was mis-led or SC was careless of not vetting all the documents in place for the approval

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 07:41 | Report Abuse

Stock: [ICAP]: ICAPITAL.BIZ BHD

2023-10-26 20:17 | Report Abuse

I need wrap up the "Brutus" Conspiracy theory and moving on to other things.

I went back to 2012 AGM Meeting Minutes

https://disclosure.bursamalaysia.com/FileAccess/apbursaweb/download/?name=EA_GM_Attachments&id=6053

Numbers don't lies. It is super easy understand why such a small issue had been blown out of proportions - Making a big mountain out of a small molehill.

There were 8 nominees - 5 seeking re-elections and 3 new nominees. Here were the results:

1 Datuk Ng Peng Hong @ Ng Peng Hay(Re-election)
For/% 80,795,355 / 95.88%
Against/% 3,473,000 / 4.12%
Total 84,268,355

2 Dato’ Dr. Norraesah Binti Mohamad(Re-election)
For/% 82,907,654 / 98.36%
Against/% 1,380,401 / 1.64%
Total 84,288,055

3 Tunku Abdul Aziz Bin Tunku Ibrahim(Re-election)
For/% 79,027,655 / 96.88%
Against/% 2,546,200 / 3.12%
Total 81,573,855

4 YM Tunku Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Ahmad Bin Tunku Yahaya(Re-election)
For/% 73,674,455 / 87.85%
Against/% 10,188,400 / 12.15%
Total 83,862,855

5 Tan Ang Meng(Relection)
For/% 74,203,705 / 87.48%
Against/% 10,615,150 / 12.52%
Total 84,818,855

6 Andrew Pegge(Laxey Partner) ** NEW**
For/% 11,347,951 / 13.44%
Against/% 73,110,804 / 86.56%
Total 84,458,755

7 Lo Kok Kee(iCAP Member nomination) **NEW**
For/% 10,637,601 / 12.63%
Against/% 73,606,654 / 87.37%
Total 84,244,255

8 Low Nyap Heng(COL) ** NEW **
For/% 11,138,951 / 13.2%
Against/% 73,122,204 / 86.8%
Total 84,261,155

At that point of time, Laxey has about 9.6 million shares and COL has 9.3 million shares.

If it is true that COL+ Laxey joint hands, you will see at least 18.9 million shares(9.6+9.3 million-kingdee math) for COL and Laxey each. On the contrary, COL had only 11.1 million and Laxey 11.3 million. That means they gi gi ku gi gi(teow chew lang saying) – each take care of themselves. It is totally untrue when I read another report in the news paper that Laxey asked people to vote for all 3 of them. Numbers said otherwise, you know who is telling the truth!

2. COL, Laxey and Lo were extremely professional, for those qualified directors, they voted for them. That is why you can see 97- 98%. If all 3 of them voted against, you will have to subtract 30+millions resulted they received only about 70%.

3. There were 2 directors that seeking reelection received 12% against votes, this must be either 1 of the 3 parties voted against them. Rumors had it, COL objected one of the directors age was above 70 years old that need special resolutions. Despite that the director received > 75% approval. Hence re-elected. This riled the fund manager as reported by the Star.

Looking purely on the "facts", I don't think it fit the theory of sacking all the BODs that seeking re-election and installed new directors, took over the company and liquidate them. It is total UNTRUE! I am not smart but definite not a PAK CHEE kia.

I rest my case and do not think I need to waste time to dwell in this topic. It is incurable if the Brutus conspiracy magic spells created by the fund manager still bonding you.

By looking into today's share price, people believe is more convinced that liquidation is out of the questions and taking some money off the table. Whoever want to stay, it is only betting on the fund manager will perform or perhaps still hanging on a small hope of improved governance. This could be his last chance. Don't screw it up!
Stock

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 07:43 | Report Abuse

Stock: [ICAP]: ICAPITAL.BIZ BHD

2023-10-25 21:49 | Report Abuse

‘Not a hostile takeover’

PETALING JAYA: iCapital.biz Bhd shareholder Lo Kok Kee maintains that he is not a nominee of European hedge fund Laxey Partners and that he is acting as a “minority shareholder rights activist”. He also refuted allegations that he was part of a hostile takeover of iCapital.biz.

In an email to StarBiz, Lo said: “I am not a nominee of Laxey. I was nominated by a shareholder of the company to stand as director, not by Laxey.”

To recap, Lo was one of three new directors seeking a board representation on iCapital.biz a move which has riled its investment adviser, Tan Teng Boo.

Lo also said that StarBiz report on Nov 6 entitled “Hostile takeover?” was “misleading”, “scare-mongering” and created uncertainty in iCapital.biz share price.

He sent to StarBiz a copy of a letter from Laxey to the board of directors of iCapital.biz dated June this year, in which a request was put forward for two resolutions to be presented at the company's forthcoming AGM. (These resolutions are different from the latest resolutions put forward by Laxey in which Lo, Andrew Pegge the founder of Laxey and one Low Nyap Heng, are seeking to be made board members of iCapital.biz.)

The first resolution (from the letter) was for Pegge to be appointed as a non-independent non-executive director of iCapital.biz and the second was for the board to bring forth proposals designed to narrow the price discount to iCapital.biz's net asset value.

“This was a perfectly legitimate request from a shareholder, but it was ignored by the board of directors for reasons best known to them. Is this a hostile takeover of the company with only one director proposed?” Lo questioned.



Lo also clarified that he had no special arrangement with Laxey in relation to SGX-listed closed-end fund United International Securities (UIS). StarBiz had reported that Lo, together, with Laxey had embarked on a similar takeover move on this company last year.

“For the record, I had acquired my shares in UIS when my original investment in Overseas Union Securities (OUS) was converted into UIS shares after their merger, long before Laxey Partners came into the scene. In 1990, I had independently proposed moves to reduce the price discount of OUS, so there was no scheme or conspiracy with Laxey as you have implied.

“I was merely invited by Laxey last year to stand for election as an independent non-executive director, to represent the interests of minority shareholders, of which I am one myself, and not as a Laxey nominee.”

Lo also said that he had held the UIS shares for more than 10 years. “Would that still make me a one night stander,” he questioned, in reference to allegations that he would be taking only a short-term position in iCapital.biz.

Similarly, Lo said he was not in cohorts with Laxey with regard to action taken at two other funds in Malaysia, namely the Amanah Millenia Fund and the Amanah Harta Tanah PNB2 (AHP2).

He sent to StarBiz a notice of the EGM of Amanah Millenia Fund in 2007, which called for members' voluntary liquidation of the fund. “None of us moved the said resolution and shareholders merely exercised their rights to vote on the resolution.

“If this was a coordinated effort between myself and Laxey, then one would have to include all the other shareholders who voted in favour of the resolution too. The allegation is without basis, as I did not even vote for the resolution. In fact, I did not attend the EGM as I didn't think my vote would be necessary.”

Lo pointed out that for AHP2, Laxey was not part of the requisitionists for the EGM that sought to liquidate the fund, nor was it a significant unit-holder of the fund.

Lo, 66, was a director and shareholder of OSK & Partners Sdn Bhd, the predecessor of OSK Investment Bank Bhd, the iCapital.biz AGM notice showed.

He had also held managerial positions in MBF Corp Bhd and Malaysian International Merchant Bank Bhd and was a research officer at Kumpulan Guthrie Sdn Bhd. He is currently a director of the Esquire Kitchen group of companies. Lo owns 22,500 shares in iCapital.biz, according to the notice.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2012/11/09/not-a-hostile-takeover/

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 07:46 | Report Abuse

I re-post my previous comments on Brutus theory how TTB ran his campaigns of iCAP was under siege from all sides and wanted to close down fund and someone wanted to do hostile take over and painted COL was increasingly hostile towards iCAP.....but those who did the CSI themselves, if you find the truths, the truths will set you free....you will stop clapping hands in AGM.

Posted by Sslee > 2024-01-26 07:50 | Report Abuse

What a pity, TTB should be a politician then he can earned billion as Minister rather than million as Fund Manager.

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 07:50 | Report Abuse

Stock: [ICAP]: ICAPITAL.BIZ BHD

2023-10-25 12:25 | Report Abuse

@Jun😂😂😂😂

Hali ini dalam sejarah. love to buy history book - usually very thick and very cheap - better value than iCAP!

Haha...it was all started with a topic of imaginary enemy. So the fund manager do all kind of things hitting the imaginary enemies but recently is getting too much by dragging sympathizers or grassroot people with dissatisfactions into the muds.

May be because of one of his perceived enemies with past background of doing the major shareholders of closed end funds a favor. Those major shareholders with almost like 40%++ ownership with shitty performance. They were too embarrassed to close down the funds by admitting their shitty performance problem that reflected in persistent discounts.

Give you one of the examples : Amanah Millenias Closed End Fund.

Even our beloved fund managed was quoted by newspaper in year 2007.

"Capital Dynamics' Tan described the winding-up as “not surprising” and expected. The fund’s net asset value had gained some 9% since its inception but was said to remain unattractive when compared with fixed deposit rates. "

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2007/07/03/impact-of-amanah-millenias-windingup-minimal

So they voluntary closed down the fund as requested by shareholders with heaps of relieves, losing a bit of fees but big face saving.

Since then, the fund manager suffered hallucinations of "Brutus" to live freely, without collecting a single sen of rental", in his minds. Perhaps COL entrance with 12% ownerships in 2012 wanted to elect some directors of their own, it is very normal for any public company to do that anyway. After the big drama and like small kids screaming, throwing tantrum, threatening to resign - COL did nothing to him. He leave him alone to choose all his directors for the past 10-11 years.

@dumbMoney went back to help him to do a therapy at no charge, why he got this sickness by going back reading iCAP constitution and found out it is take over proof and the fund manager position is unshakeable.

reproduced @dumbMoney post now >>>>>>
The constitution is custom tailored, from the way the clauses are drafted. If iCap is no longer managed by CDAM, it can no longer use the name iCap, as the IP rights belong to CDAM. How many investors take the trouble to go through the constitution to read the fine print before investing? I didn't until now because of the foreign shareholdings limit issue. Interesting reading on corporate control.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Then i3lurker added this comment, IP is not that great because

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
iCap is lousy name extreme bad feng shui so TTB is welcome to take it back.

iCap means income is Capped, you will make small money only.
>>>>>>>>>>>

😂😂😂

Sekian Terima Kasih.

Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-26 09:35 | Report Abuse

1. dumbmoney claimed no ties to COL
2. Lo Kok Kee is being called out as @dumbmoney in AGM and roadshows
3. Lo received 12% support in 2012 AGM resolution votings

Question:
- How does Lo get the 12% support? Does his name apppear among the top 30 shareholders top list?
- Is Lo Kok Kee really dumbmoney? if not, why dont mr Lo sue Mr Tan for 'Penghasutan'

Personal opinion:
“ for iCap shareholders who want to sell, why not take advantage of the situation by queuing at high price as close as possible to NAV. Since COL keeps buying even the row with the fund manner, it means they need to buy, so let’s take advantage of it.”

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 11:01 | Report Abuse

@Patient Investor As FastMoney posted "At that point of time, Laxey has about 9.6 million shares and COL has 9.3 million shares." If COL had voted along with Laxey, the total shares would have exceeded 12%, kindee maths. So it is obvious that COL did not vote. What more proof you need? What would be more interesting is whether you found shareholders' approval for the dual listed fund after you went back all the way to 2012, when this was first announced by CDAM that they got SC approval for it. It was SC's approval for CDAM, not iCap. How did this baby 's expenses ended up being the latter's, without any formal announcement to shareholders that such a project is ongoing by iCap? It is like a baby born out of wedlock. Like my lawyer friend advised me when I first got involved with litigation, don't go to court with unclean hands. They will come back and haunt you.

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 11:23 | Report Abuse

If Patient Investor independently cannot find evidence of shareholders' approval for the dual listing exercise, what will be his position then, that such approval is not required, or payment was made without approval?

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 11:48 | Report Abuse

And while he is doing the searches, look for the clauses on individual shareholders and foreign shareholders limit in the constitution. I have earlier posted the link to it, no need to spend money to buy one.

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 14:36 | Report Abuse

I don't hold a SC license, so even if I posted rubbish, no law against it, but if a license holder does it, may lose his license, so don't play play. I did hold a license before, so I tend to still follow the same requirements with my posts, as credibility is important in a public forum that may have professional readers well versed in the subject matters. Besides, I also have my School's reputation to protect, less it gets condemned for teaching me rubbish.

Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-26 15:05 | Report Abuse

I recalled the updates on dual listing exercise in HK was provided shareholders back then by Mr.Tan. Whether there's a vote or not I cant recall, nor the evidence of vote on it, have to seek clarification from ICAP BOD if "expenses on capital dynamic" is mentioned to shareholders before.

For now, my position is still keep holding and add on when NAV gap widens.
Though the 6 million is charged to the fund, and not selling PAKRSON at its height, selling Vitrox too early are mistakes, .ICAP grows the NAV from RM1 to RM3.6, which I appreciate the performance.
I dont expect my fund manger to be a saint who never fail in every single investment decision.

Personal opinion:
“ for iCap shareholders who want to sell, why not take advantage of the situation by queuing at high price as close as possible to NAV. Since COL keeps buying even the row with the fund manner, it means they need to buy, so let’s take advantage of it.”

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 15:14 | Report Abuse

In law, if you need to prove something that exists, all you need is to produce it as evidence. If you cannot, then you have to resort to all kinds of spin to explain why it should have been there but isn't. So for the dual listing expenses, if there is no evidence of shareholders' approval, you have only 1 justification, that it is not required, then you end up facing all the rules and regulations, not just one, but both Bursa and SC that say it does. So it is between a rock and a hard place.

Posted by Sslee > 2024-01-26 15:17 | Report Abuse

https://klse.i3investor.com/servlets/stk/fin/5108.jsp?type=last10fy
NAPS:
31/05/14: RM 3.05
31/05/23: RM 3.40

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 15:18 | Report Abuse

@Patient Investor. The then chairman of the board of directors and another director resigned just before the dual listing expenses were paid, with the former citing differences in opinion. Why don't you ask them as well why they resigned and the timing? Is it over the payment?

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 15:23 | Report Abuse

And mentioning it in passing is not seeking approval. And it is public information that needs to be posted on Bursa, not just in closed door meetings or newsletter. The reporting requirements for a public listed company are onerous, infringements can lead to public reprimands and fines for the BoD.

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 15:52 | Report Abuse

A public listed company cannot blew a year's profits with only a footnote in the accounts, and yet, the faithful shareholders carried on business as usual, not a squeak from them.

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 15:55 | Report Abuse

That's why TTB wants a rubber stamp board. Any BOD not handpicked by him considered as hostile

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 16:38 | Report Abuse

At the 2012 AGM, COL did not vote for Andrew Pegge's election to the Board, so this proved that they are not parties in concert, contrary to what management had alleged.

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 17:04 | Report Abuse

The AGM in 2012 was the only year with outside people standing for election as directors, and if COL did not support them, and did not propose any candidates itself over all these years, the hoax that it is trying to take over the fund is pure fear mongering. One cannot take over a fund simply by not voting for certain directors. Thanks to Patient Investor for bring this up after all these years, the voting record of COL.

Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-26 19:02 | Report Abuse

Based on 2012 and 2013 annual reports, in top 30 shareholders list, ASING only jointly owned around 12%.
Which means they voted for all the outsiders seeking board seats.

Thanks to dumbmoney pushes me to dig in deeper.

Personal opinion:
“ for iCap shareholders who want to sell, why not take advantage of the situation by queuing at high price as close as possible to NAV. Since COL keeps buying even the row with the fund manner, it means they need to buy, so let’s take advantage of it.”

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 19:20 | Report Abuse

@Patient Investor, please read the announcements properly. It says 12% of the votes cast, not 12% of the shares outstanding! If shareholders turnout is only 84 million, the 12% votes cast is around 10 million shares. At that point of time, Laxey has about 9.6 million shares and COL has 9.3 million shares. Kiddies maths, only one of these two blocks of shares voted.

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 19:22 | Report Abuse

This is affirmative bias in action, you already formed your own conclusion, so you try to make the numbers fit your theory.

Posted by observatory > 2024-01-26 21:19 | Report Abuse

I was once attracted by ICAP seemingly deep NAV discount.

But the RM6.6m dual listing expenses charged to ICAP fund holders shows why it was justified to trade at huge discount.

First, no shareholders’ approval. Second, anyone with some foreign stocks experience knows dual listing does not narrow NAV discount as claimed. Many stocks traded at a discount in their secondary market as investors there are not familiar with the stock. Is the ICAP fund manager ignorant? Or is it a diversionary tactic in the face of criticism on the widening discount?

Why it took him so many years to “study”? And after all those wasted years with widening discount gap, he had the cheek to pass the bill to the fundholders!

Intelligence? Integrity? Haha.

Posted by observatory > 2024-01-26 21:21 | Report Abuse

The failure of the board to stop him from charging the RM6.6m was even more outrageous. The board should have asked themselves who pay their salary, the fundholders or the fund manager?

Shortly after this incident, several board members did resign, including the Chairman, and a newly elected board member, though they invariably cited “personal reasons”. What could you infer from their actions?

If I have the votes in AGMs, I would definitely vote against these pliant board members. I would be more than happy to vote in any new faces to shake up the place, be it Lo Kok Lee or any others. Not to mention from internet I can see Lo Kok Lee has a good rack records and background.

The only attractive thing about ICAP is some of the good comments here. The only reason I continue to pay attention to this value trap.

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 22:02 | Report Abuse

@observatory The mandate to CDAM as fund manager and TTB as designated person is confined to management of the portfolio. Corporate governance matters remain with the BoD and not outsourced to any one else, so any matters outside of portfolio management is front and center, the BoD's responsibility. To obtain a foreign listing, be it for iCap itself, or a new fund under iCap, has to be the decision of the BoD, after informing and getting approval from the shareholders, as per listing rules on significant diversion from existing operations. Failing to do so would render the exercise an infringement on the rules, for which the buck stops with the board. Next is the injunction against COL. Did members of the board obtain obtain proper legal advice on the cause of action, which was decided against the fund on the date of the appeal hearing itself, such an open and shut case, or they just went along with whoever suggested this? The same thing is going to happen with the foreign shareholding limit, is it the board's decision to proclaim such a limit, after satisfying themselves that they are on solid grounds? Directors have the fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the company at all times.

Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-26 22:12 | Report Abuse

dumbmoney,
You are right, my apology on the % mistakes. So has these two blocks join hands now? why are they nominating you to the board? What's the goal?

observatory,
you got the rights to challenge the board as long you are shareholder, looking towards it. Ain't the discount happens before the 6.6 million charges?

Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-26 22:27 | Report Abuse

https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/troubles-icapitalbiz
news from 2012

Does it means the intention to get into the board is to use the fund cash reserves to do buy back to close the gap?

anyone knows what Pegge and Lo action in Amanah Millenia Fund and Amanah Harta Tanah PNB2?

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 22:41 | Report Abuse

People got piss off ma....whoever successfully be able to get into nomination, be assured that they will receive votes.

In 2023, Loi Chee Foong and Yeoh Eng Kong tried to nominate themselves for a post of BOD but was stopped out. Too pity....I sure will cast my 1 share vote for them.

The board has been sleeping on the job or just no guts to stand up against TTB except day in day out stamp whatever TTB wants

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 22:47 | Report Abuse

Patient Investor, even Pegge or Lo successful elected into the board in 2012, there still 3 directors from TTB side, so it will be 2-3 when comes to vote...still TTB side will win but there will be good check and balance

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 22:49 | Report Abuse

It's too speculative on your side keep hantam on the point of closing down fund or and etc....but you keep forgeting it needs 75% approval from shareholders which they don't have...why keep going round and round...

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 22:50 | Report Abuse

It's the same fear mongering that TTB employs along your thinking...it must be hearing too much and too long from him...I believe we soon our shares in iCAP will go down to zero of which impossible to influence anything. you can be rest assured....

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 22:52 | Report Abuse

what ever POP investment or COL want to do, it is their business. Personally, I am a capitalist, only 1 thing I concern, Return on Investment. Was glad to sell iCap and bought Insas and JTiasa, sitting nicely on 40% profit on Insas and 20% on JTiasa

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 22:56 | Report Abuse

If you feel Lo with only 22,500 shares at that time, how much can he benefited? Do you think it is worthwhile he endures the shit for a few thousand ringgit?

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 22:59 | Report Abuse

"anyone knows what Pegge and Lo action in Amanah Millenia Fund and Amanah Harta Tanah PNB2?" Please read the Star rebuttal posted by FastMoney earlier on this. Don't just shoot from the hip without checking your facts first. All these are matters of public record, nothing to hide.

Posted by observatory > 2024-01-26 23:13 | Report Abuse

observatory, 
you got the rights to challenge the board as long you are shareholder, looking towards it. Ain't the discount happens before the 6.6 million charges?

__________________________

I don’t have the right to vote and challenge the board as I’m not a shareholder. Anyway I have no intention to be a shareholder in this value trap.

But I do have the right to air my opinion here and point out the inactions and failures of the board. And I look forward anyone showing me, with facts and logic, why I’m wrong.

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 23:23 | Report Abuse

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/av6ts3njg607yxqmyjc8a/OUS-1990-news-cutting.pdf?rlkey=wdzqbxk4mqhjhaqthi5rzn0l1&dl=0 Read the date of this news article. iCap was not even around then.

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 23:33 | Report Abuse

@dumbMoney, unfortunately, followers of TTB will see only 1 point, Lo proposed to convert from a closed end fund to open ended fund and ignoring the other points - it was not a performance problem but it was a liquidity(lack of demand) was the reason of discount between NAV to market price.

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 23:36 | Report Abuse

This remind me of an OB class on paradigm

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/paradigm-shift--352828952039869457/

Do we see a young lady or an old ugly lady?

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-26 23:36 | Report Abuse

This remind me of an OB class on paradigm

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/paradigm-shift--352828952039869457/

Do we see a young lady or an old ug_ly lady?

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-26 23:50 | Report Abuse

One after another, the Singaporean CEF's all went into members voluntary liquidation. Proactive management? To the big banks, the fee income from managing the CEF's are rounding errors on their P&L, better to have happy sharehlders than grumpy ones.

Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-27 07:53 | Report Abuse

So why COL keeps buying? They can buy into other open end funds. Why still buying into a close end fund that some claimed has bad governance and having drama? I see it as action speaks louder than words.

Open end fund doesn’t fit long term value investment philosophy as the fund will be forced to unload and miss opportunity grabbing up bargains when shareholders are in panic situation.
How many percent of public investor is making decent returns over long term? Very little. How many losing a great deal of money over long term? Plenty!


Personal opinion:
“ for iCap shareholders who want to sell, why not take advantage of the situation by queuing at high price as close as possible to NAV. Since COL keeps buying even the row with the fund manner, it means they need to buy, so let’s take advantage of it.”

Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-27 08:17 | Report Abuse

dumbmoney,
Since you know beforehand its common a CEF will be traded at discount @ NAV, why had you bought into icap and try to get elected to board?

Did you read the prospectus beforehand? Does your action fit the interest of the majority public investors and the investment goal in the prospectus?

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-27 09:13 | Report Abuse

Drama was created by TTB.... If he didn't overblown the issues. The issue would have died after the AGM.

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-27 09:15 | Report Abuse

If he didn't take COL to the court, no drama.

If no escalation on SICDA, also no drama.

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-27 09:27 | Report Abuse

Nobody happy with Insas that sells at a deep discount...some try to push to unlock the value but with not much success. The owner was just passive.... Somehow sudden volume spike triggered the demand for such value play in our bolehland now.... Price is catching up with the value. There is also more awareness on such deep discounts exist attracts investors and speculators alike. Price goes up, price comes down, life goes on. The difference is these onwers will not claim they are better than the best - - an invitation to challenge. 😂😂

Posted by dumbMoney > 2024-01-27 12:18 | Report Abuse

If people want to think that the introduction of the new fangled dividend policy is out of the kindness of management's heart, that's no skin off my back. It is not like after so many years with just two special dividends, management woke up one morning and decided that maybe a dividend policy is a good thing for shareholders and became proactive. As to why I buy iCap, if I can make 40% returns within 6 months, why not? Like they say, no difference between black cat and white cat, as long as it can catch the mouse, I don't discriminate between long term and short term profits. Profit is profit, money I can bank in, not money I can see but cannot touch.

Posted by Patient Investor > 2024-01-27 13:07 | Report Abuse

@dumbmoney
Well, since your intention is not aligned with majority public shareholders, and consider against the mission of the fund during establishment. I think its pretty normal for the fund manager to view you as a threat to the fund and other shareholders.

Why not just move your capital elsewhere? maybe get FastMoney to manage on your behalf which yield 40% in one quarter. That's a win-win-win for 3 parties.

Personal opinion:
“ for iCap shareholders who want to sell, why not take advantage of the situation by queuing at high price as close as possible to NAV. Since COL keeps buying even the row with the fund manner, it means they need to buy, so let’s take advantage of that. ”

Posted by FastMoney666 > 2024-01-27 13:41 | Report Abuse

Haha... The other way round... Should let dumbMoney manage... my was a fluke... Thanks to SSLee brought up the idea of Insas. I was skeptical at first but pure luck.

It just rocketed... In a bull market... Normal...