Alliance Trust faces a stronger opponent in its latest challenge from an activist shareholder than it did in 2011, according to analysts, but a more moderate attack.
The trust is hoping to see off the proposed admittance to its board of three directors nominated by Elliott Advisors, which has a 12per cent stake, and which claims Alliance's corporate governance needs an overhaul.
Numis Securities observes that Alliance will hope to rely on shares held through Alliance Trust Savings, which amount to almost a quarter of the stock. Other key holders are DC Thomson (6.5 per cent), Brewin Dolphin (4.4per cent). Bank of NY Mellon (3.5per cent) and Speirs & Jeffrey (3.3per cent) .
Numis says say Elliott is "a long way from winning the vote" but compared with the campaign waged four years ago by 1.3 per cent holder Laxey Partners, "there is a greater threat from Elliott....due to its larger stake and deeper pockets".
There would also be "no shortage of management groups willing to put forward proposals to manage Alliance Trust, given the potential prize of net assets £3.2bn".
However, Simon Elliott at Winterflood Securities, commented: "We suspect that many shareholders will be struggling to make the link between the appointment of three new non-executive directors and a marked improvement in performance." He said Alliance would probably "point to the recent changes to the investment management team, the subsequent pick-up in performance and the experience and skill set already represented amongst its directors".
Mr Elliott said the proposal for new directors was relatively "friendly", none of the candidates appeared connected to Elliott, and there were no proposals for subsequent strategic reviews. "We suspect this reflects the size of Elliott's shareholding, the nature of the fund's shareholder base, and the lessons learnt from Laxey Partners' tussle with Alliance Trust."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article