Australia's Insignia agrees to $2.2 billion takeover by CC Capital, ending bidding war
Under the agreed deal, CC Capital will pay shareholders A$4.80 per share in cash.
That represents a 22.14% premium to Insignia's closing price on Monday. However, it's slightly below CC Capital's improved bid of A$5 per share it made in March to match Bain Capital's A$3.34 billion offer before the U.S. private equity firm withdrew it in May.
The 178-year-old Australian wealth manager had initially rejected Bain's December approach, deeming it insufficient, sparking a bidding contest when CC Capital Partners entered as a rival suitor.
Insignia's board unanimously recommended shareholders approve the scheme of arrangement "in the absence of a superior proposal".
($1 = 1.5337 Australian dollars)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
TONY HETHERINGTON: My friend has put thousands into a mysterious new company promising unrealistic returns
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday's ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. A.M. writes: My friend has recently invested a few thousand pounds with Al-Tabbaa & Hackett, which promises unrealistic returns. She is now thinking of investing more. It seems to be a company recently formed by one individual, with an address at serviced offices in Covent Garden in London. I would be grateful if you could investigate. Tony Hetherington replies: Let's start by looking at Al-Tabbaa & Hackett Limited. It was set up on February 19 this year, with its owner and sole director named as 55-year-old Hasan Al-Tabbaa from Grimsby. Al-Tabbaa is an interesting character. He describes himself as an entrepreneur and inventor. Several years ago he appealed on Twitter for money to start a bank, promising shares worth ten times whatever investors gave him. His LinkedIn page describes him as having been chief executive of a technology company since 1986, when he was 16. But here's a funny thing. On July 7, a few days after I started asking awkward questions, all mention of Al-Tabbaa vanished from Companies House records. Al-Tabbaa & Hackett Limited now has no founder, no shareholder, no director, and probably no future. The man himself has not offered any explanation or comment, and officials at Companies House rarely discuss individual cases, but it is possible he did not in fact form the company. In the past year or so, Companies House says over 52,000 people were named in company formations without their consent. So, setting Al-Tabbaa completely aside, let's look at the website that persuaded your friend to part with thousands of pounds. The website was set up on May 1. It offers various deposit accounts, starting with the basic easy access account which claims to offer a 'guaranteed 2 per cent return per month'. Any scheme that claims to pay interest at 2 per cent a month has to involve huge risks, but the website says 'there is no risk involved' for the fund as the firm 'protects the capital for their investors'. That's hardly a convincing argument, so I fired off some questions via email. Firstly, I questioned a claim on review website Trustpilot under the heading 'Written by the company' that says the firm is 'one of the largest savings organisations in the UK and Europe'. When I asked for evidence of this, back came an email from Ibrahim Jemal, telling me: 'We do not claim to be one of the largest savings organisations in the United Kingdom and Europe'! Well how about the glowing reviews on Trustpilot, including one supposedly from a saver who has put money into the firm over the past couple of years, when its website is just two months old? The helpful Jemal suggested the customer might be from another country, yet Trustpilot says he is from Britain. In fact, the earliest review of the firm is dated May 19 this year. Jemal went further, insisting: 'We do not serve customers within the UK.' Really? The website says that in the event of any dispute, UK laws apply and 'the seat of arbitration shall be Manchester'. The phone number provided is a UK one. Since I started investigating, Jemal and his website have suggested that they are really in the UAE, and outside the jurisdiction of the UK Financial Conduct Authority. I have passed all of this over to the FCA, so we shall see. Meanwhile, your friend should try to get her cash out pronto. I suspect the real location for this bunch is Fantasy Island. RBS account mix-up C.Y. writes: I have received a letter from the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), saying my business account interest rate is dropping. I do not have any account with RBS, nor have I ever had one. Trying to discuss this by phone is impossible as they want the account number, and I have no such account. Tony Hetherington replies: You called the bank, you emailed the bank, and you tried to chat with the bank's online digital assistant. But every time, you ran up against the same stumbling block, which was that you could not tell them the number of the account for which you were supposed to be a signatory. To their credit, staff at RBS got to the bottom of this mystery within a day of my contacting them. You really were named on an RBS account. It belongs to an Army charity, and you are an Army veteran. In 2012, you were briefly a volunteer signatory on the charity's current account before switching roles within the organisation. However, although statements have always gone to the charity's treasurer, the bank was not asked to delete you as a signatory. You have now been taken off the account, so you should not hear from RBS again. But the bank has gone one surprisingly pleasant step further. Because it could not help you when you made contact, it has sent you what you have told me is a remarkably generous hamper of goodies. All in all, well done RBS!
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
CITY OF LONDON INVESTMENT TRUST: On a roll for 59 years and counting
Like the UK stock market, investment trust City of London is on something of a roll, much to the delight of its shareholders. Despite its inherent investment conservatism, the £2.5 billion fund continues to outperform its benchmark, the FTSE All-Share Index. Over the last year, it has delivered a total return, comprising a mix of income and share price gain, of 22.4 per cent, comfortably beating the 15.3 per cent return generated by the FTSE All-Share Index. It has also beaten its benchmark over the past three and five years. The trust's focus on income from a portfolio of UK shares makes it a popular choice among retail investors. When the final quarterly dividend for the financial year just gone is paid at the end of next month, the FTSE 250-listed trust will have racked up 59 consecutive years of income increases. No other investment trust has such a long-standing record, although nine others have grown their income for at least half a century. In pounds and pence, the trust's income payments in the last financial year tot up to 21.3p a share, 3.4 per cent ahead of the previous year and equivalent to an annual dividend yield in excess of four per cent. To put these payments into context, the shares now stand at just below £5, although last week they briefly breached £5 for the first time in the trust's 134-year history. For the past 34 years, City of London – one of 11 from the Janus Henderson stable of investment trusts – has been managed by Job Curtis with David Smith jumping on board four years ago as his deputy. Understandably, Curtis is proud of the trust's record and the conservative slant of the 79-strong portfolio. This conservatism comes through in many ways. For a start, most of the holdings are cash generative businesses with a propensity to pay a growing dividend. Also, most – 80 per cent plus - are FTSE 100 listed companies with businesses that span the globe. Some 60 per cent of the revenues that the trust's holdings earn are overseas. Although the FTSE 100 surpassed 9,000 in recent days, Curtis believes there is more to come. He says: 'The UK stock market still provides excellent value compared to other global markets. In effect, like the trust, it provides investors with the opportunity to get exposure to some attractive global companies at a discount.' In the past year and a half, Curtis has increased the trust's holdings in UK-listed banks: HSBC, NatWest and Lloyds are all among the fund's top ten positions. It has proved a profitable decision, and he believes there are more gains and dividends up for grabs. 'A big change, prompted by government, is taking place in the regulation of UK banks,' he says. 'The emphasis is now less on whether the banks are sufficiently capitalised, and more on enabling them to increase their lending, fuel economic growth, improve profits and deliver dividend growth.' Other attractive features of this trust include low annual charges, totalling 0.37 per cent. To put this figure into perspective, the average for the UK equity income sector is 0.56 per cent. The fees (in percentage terms) will reduce when the trust grows to £3 billion. Also, the shares currently trade at a small premium to the underlying assets, unlike many rivals. Curtis says: 'The trust's board takes the view that investors value stability. This means shares will be bought back if they trade at a discount above 2 per cent.' The trust's stock market ticker is CTY and identification code 0199049.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
If the economics of broadening or lifting Australia's GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous
When Jim Chalmers declared we needed a national debate on reforming the economy to drive the next generation of prosperity, he scolded the media for its penchant for playing the rule-in-rule-out game. The irony is that from his high horse, the treasurer had almost certainly ruled out one major change: lifting or broadening the GST. If Chalmers is being disingenuous when he suggests nothing is off the table at next month's talkfest – and he absolutely is – then he should have ruled out changes to the consumption tax from the very start. Many economists argue that lifting or broadening the GST is an essential ingredient in any reform package that fundamentally improves the efficiency of the tax system. More GST revenue can pay for cuts to income and company tax rates, for example. This shift provides a structurally more stable tax revenue base, and sharpens incentives to work and invest. Labor as a party, however, is fundamentally opposed to changing the tax on consumption on the basis that it hurts poorer Australians. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the worry about fairness is real. New analysis by the ANU's Ben Phillips shows that the GST is 'highly regressive'. Phillips' modelling shows the bottom fifth of income earners pay 5.4% of their income on consumption taxes. That's more than twice as much as the top 20% of households, where GST accounts for 2.6% of disposable income. Broadening the GST to include the things currently excluded – such as fresh food and education – makes the tax even more regressive. Phillips finds consumption taxes as a share of household budgets climbs to 7.9% for the lowest incomes, and 3.5% for those at the top. 'I think equity concerns are spot on,' Phillips says. 'There would have to be a complicated new approach to compensation for lower and middle income workers to make it politically feasible. 'We would be relying on there being some substantial economic gains from increasing the GST, and they are probably relatively modest.' If the economics of broadening or lifting the GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous. The first hurdle is the most obvious: the states get the revenue, while the commonwealth cops the heat. Even if the Albanese government could agree with its state and territory counterparts to share the proceeds, there is also the issue that the GST distribution system has been fundamentally undermined by the obscenely generous deal with Western Australia, the country's richest state. As such, a bigger GST pile without getting rid of this distortion would simply exacerbate what Saul Eslake has called 'possibly the worst public policy decision of the 21st century'. Which begs the question: can we get meaningful tax reform without lifting the GST? Ken Henry, who authored a major tax paper in 2010 and is considered the country's high priest of reform, argues that 'tax reform cannot be done piecemeal; a big package will be required'. He recently told The Conversation's Michelle Grattan 'it would be better not to constrain the reform process by ruling out the GST'. 'Having said that, I do think it's possible to achieve major reform of the Australian taxation system without necessarily increasing the rate or extending the base of the GST.' Such reforms could be paid for via higher taxes on natural resources, and on wealth and savings – both on capital gains and income from that capital (think property investments and superannuation). Chalmers' narrative for the reform roundtable apparently leans into Henry's view around some kind of tax 'grand bargain'. But again, the treasurer's ambition is much more narrow. He has famously described his approach to reform as 'bite-sized chunks', and defended his policy initiatives since coming to power as 'modest but meaningful'. In fact, the most obvious next steps for Labor when it comes to tax is reforming the treatment of family trusts, and introducing a road user charge to replace dwindling fuel excise revenue. Whether we need another roundtable to get there is an open question. Viva Hammer, who played a key role in designing America's immense Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, had some advice for policymakers. Speaking at a tax roundtable organised by the independent MP Allegra Spender, Hammer said the ambition should be 'to think about doing something better, and not something perfect, because perfection is for the angels'. Breaking it down to the lowest common denominator, the independent economist Chris Richardson's advice is 'let's just stop doing dumb things'. Speaking at the same event in Parliament House on Friday, Richardson said his number one 'dumb thing' is how we tax gas through the petroleum rent resources tax (PRRT). Australia over recent years has become a gas superpower. And yet, incredibly, the tax take has not changed at all, Richardson says. Labor's tweaks to the PRRT have not changed this reality – as Richardson says, the forecasts for revenue from this tax are a 'big fat nothing' in future years. 'Some people say you can't change because there would be some 'sovereign risk',' he said, referring to the claims that altering these rules puts off foreign investors and can choke off funding for the industry. 'Sovereign risk is where one side gets next to nothing across a long period of time, and our own stupidity has got us there, and we should do better.' Richardson believes we are also not charging banks enough for the implicit 'too big to fail' insurance provided by taxpayers. The two suggestions, he said, could raise $5-6bn a year.
