- They are two of seven investment trusts targeted by hedge fund Saba’s plans
Saba has been handed a second and third consecutive defeat at the hands of UK investment trust investors, after Baillie Gifford US Growth and Keystone Positive Change shareholders rejected the hedge fund’s proposals.
The pair are two of seven trusts targeted by Saba’s plans to overhaul control of respective boards and management, which the hedge fund has accused of failing to tackle recent poor performance and persistent discounts to net asset value.
Saba ultimately wants to merge some or all of the trusts into a new vehicle targeting other London-listed funds with large discounts to NAV.
But Baillie Gifford US Growth and Keystone Positive change investors followed Herald Investment Trust shareholders by rejecting Saba’s proposals on Monday.
Head of investment companies at QuotedData, James Carthew, said the outcome of the votes ‘gives us hope that Saba will lose all’ of the votes put to investors.
Takeover plans: Saba founder Boaz Weinstein tastes defeat in first three of seven votes
He added: ‘In the wake of this, we expect that the sentiment will turn from relief to anger at the disruption that this has caused and the considerable sums that have had to be spent to ward off the attack.
‘One positive result may be that investors are better able and more likely to vote at company meetings in future.
‘Real change seems to be happening at some platforms, and a change of company law to enforce shareholders’ rights may not be far behind.’
Retail investors come out in force
At Baillie Gifford US Growth, voter turnout was relatively strong at 78.4 per cent of the company’s total voting rights, while approximately 98.5 per cent of non-Saba votes cast were against the hedge fund’s proposals.
Of total votes cast, 65.6 per cent of voting rights opted to oppose all of Saba’s resolutions.
Boardroom battles: The date of each vote on the future of the investment trusts
Chair Tom Burnet thanked shareholders for their support and noted the high number of retail shareholders ‘who have voted and played a key role in this positive outcome and encourage them to continue to make their voices heard’.
It chimes with data from AJ Bell which said its customers have ‘come out in force to vote on Saba’s proposals’ for all five investment trust votes scheduled for this week, with a minimum of 60 per cent of shares voted on in each trust by the voting deadline.
Hargreaves Lansdown said over 40 per cent of its clients who are shareholders in Baillie Gifford US Growth Fund expressed their vote.
Burnet said: ‘Faced with the threat to their investment posed by Saba’s self-serving and destructive proposals, shareholders have mobilised and acted decisively to protect their investment.
‘We look forward to executing our strategy in a supportive macro environment and continuing to engage with all our shareholders.’
Hargreaves Lansdown said more than 46 per cent of clients who are shareholders in Keystone Positive Change opted to vote on proposals, which were ultimately defeated by 60 per cent of total votes cast.
Keystone Positive Change chair Karen Brade said: ‘Of the votes cast, nearly 99 per cent. of the non-Saba shareholders rejected its proposals.
‘Now our focus returns to delivering the proposed scheme that offers an uncapped cash exit and/or a rollover into a more liquid fund with a similar global impact strategy. We are confident that this remains in the best interests of shareholders.
‘The board intends to re-engage with stakeholders without delay in order to implement this scheme as soon as practicable.’
DIY INVESTING PLATFORMS
AJ Bell
AJ Bell
Easy investing and ready-made portfolios
Hargreaves Lansdown
Hargreaves Lansdown
Free fund dealing and investment ideas
interactive investor
interactive investor
Flat-fee investing from £4.99 per month
Saxo
Saxo
Get £200 back in trading fees
Trading 212
Trading 212
Free dealing and no account fee
Affiliate links: If you take out a product This is Money may earn a commission. These deals are chosen by our editorial team, as we think they are worth highlighting. This does not affect our editorial independence.
