Voting recommendations
Note to journalists:
Comment: JEH nibbles at VampireJEH is currently one of HK's better-governed companies. After two recent appointments, more than half of its directors (6 out of 11) are independent non-executive directors, which is a rarity in Hong Kong. JEH is 59.6% controlled by the Wang family trusts, so it would make the INEDs more independent if the family undertook not to vote on the election and re-election of INEDs. Kudos to JEH, as it is the first company in the Hang Seng Index to adopt a principal recommendation of Project Vampire, which calls for placings of new shares for cash under the general mandate to be limited to 5% of issued shares and a maximum discount of 5%, while allowing the traditional 20% general mandate for non-cash issues, such as shares issued in payment for acquisitions. JEH has in fact proposed to reduce its general issue mandate from last year's 20% to 5%, full stop, without seeking a 20% mandate for non-cash issues for acquisitions. This means that any substantial acquisitions involving more than a 5% issuance will be subject to shareholders' approval, although the Wang family would be able to give such approval with their majority vote. However, JEH has not included any limit on the discount for issues, whereas we recommend a maximum discount of 5% be included in the mandate. Company secretary Susan Yip Chee-Lan told Webb-site.com by e-mail today "we will consider to limit on the price discount not exceeding, may be at 3 or 5%, on the next 2004 mandate". On balance, although JEH has not fully complied with Vampire recommendations, this year we will recommend in favour of the mandate (item 7.1), and next year, we will look for that discount limit to be included. The only other company in the HSI with a Vampire-compliant mandate is HSBC Holdings plc, which as a UK-listed UK-incorporated company has to comply with the UK Pre-emption Guidelines, currently the international best practice on which Project Vampire is based. Reasons AGAINSTItem 7.3We vote against item 7.3, which involves extending the issue mandate to include any shares repurchased under the share repurchase mandate. There is an important distinction between the two mandates: under the buy-back mandate, all purchases must be on-market and at market price, and any shareholder can participate in the market. But in a share placing, the only people who get to participate are those chosen by the company, and at a discount. For these reasons, there should be no link between the two mandates, and we do not approve of extending the issue mandate in this way. Copyright Webb-site.com, 2003 Sign up for our free newsletter Recommend Webb-site.com to a friend Important notice: All material on this site, except where otherwise accredited, is copyright to Webb-site.com. Media and researchers are welcome to quote from articles on this site, provided that such quotation is attributed to Webb-site.com. The information in this site should not be relied upon by any person in making any investment decision. No responsibility or liability is accepted by Webb-site.com or any person related to it for any loss arising from or in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this site. Persons who are in any doubt about an investment or potential investment should take professional investment advice. From time to time parties associated with Webb-site.com may own long or short positions in securities issued by or related to companies or governments on which we comment. |