Finally, Britain has stood up for its stock market
Against all the odds, Boaz Weinstein is likely to lose all seven of the votes he demanded from the investment trust world. He has already lost six, and the board of Edinburgh Worldwide will probably confirm a clean sweep this afternoon.
The man himself is even less optimistic, declaring 'we are going to lose for sure' earlier this week at what has to be one of the most impressive student-organised conferences out there (props to the London School of Economics Alternative Investments Conference for quite the line-up).
Not a single person I spoke to in the run-up to these votes believed a 7-0 record was possible – even the most hopeful investment trust stalwarts thought four wins would be a turn up for the books.
Despite retail shareholders' track record for not showing up (less than a fifth cast their ballot in a vote on the infamous Woodford compensation scheme), an average 74.9pc of voting rights were executed.
Of course, this includes Mr Weinstein's hedge fund Saba's average 25.1pc holding and other institutional votes, but the turnout is to be applauded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
16 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Edinburgh investment trust 'significant costs' from bid to oust board
Edinburgh Worldwide revealed on February 14 that it had become the seventh investment trust in the UK, and the third in Scotland, to defeat a campaign by Saba to oust its board. The investment trust, which is run from Edinburgh by fund management house Baillie Gifford, said then that investors holding 63.8% of the shares that were voted opposed all of Saba's resolutions. Announcing results for the six months to April 30 today, Edinburgh Worldwide said: 'Shareholders will…be aware that during the period on which we are reporting, the company was requisitioned and was required, under the terms of the requisition, to hold a general meeting at which various resolutions were put to shareholders. 'Shareholders voted to support the existing mandate and the board at the requisitioned general meeting but it should be noted that significant costs were incurred as a consequence of this requisition. This is reported in our income statement alongside the costs associated with other shareholder circulars that have been approved during this period.' The results show Edinburgh Worldwide incurred 'other administrative expenses' of £2.615 million in the six months to April 30, up from £601,000 in its previous first half. Read more Edinburgh Worldwide states: 'The other administrative expenses have increased due to increased professional fees incurred in the reduction of the share premium account, the change in investment policy and the requisitioning of a general meeting by Saba Capital.' The investment trust reported that, over the six-month period on a total return basis, its net asset value per share fell by 2.9% while the comparative index, the S&P Global Small Cap Index, was down 7.2%. It said: 'After a strong second half to the financial year [to] 31 October 2024 where the net asset value per share total return was +6.0% and the share price total return was +11.0%, performance over this reporting period has been impacted by heightened volatility in global markets following a significant sell-off in April 2025, the result of President Trump's 'Liberation Day' announcement of US tariffs and China's retaliatory measures.' Edinburgh Worldwide added: 'In November 2024, the board and investment manager collaborated to introduce meaningful improvements to portfolio construction and execution, focusing on fewer holdings and stricter measures to address underperforming investments. 'The portfolio has been reshaped to include more profitable, cash-generating companies and greater sectoral diversification. This has resulted in a more focused and better-balanced portfolio with stronger sales and earnings growth prospects to position the company for improved future performance.' The trust noted that, following the announcement in November 2024 of the board's commitment to return up to £130m of capital, it had 'made the necessary practical changes to the company's distributable reserves, including the reduction of the company's share premium account, to permit this'. It added: 'In addition, the board progressed plans to offer all shareholders a meaningful capital return through a tender offer, on a basis that would not unduly affect the resultant balance of the company's portfolio. However, following discussions with significant shareholders, it is unlikely that the desired level of support will be received and so the board has decided to pause the process, for the present, to avoid incurring unnecessary costs. Edinburgh Worldwide noted its board 'continues to prioritise share buybacks as the primary capital return mechanism.' It said: 'Additionally, the board has been considering an evolved approach to capital allocation in the future. The board recognises that, notwithstanding the company's long-term investment horizon, shareholders should benefit tangibly when material realisations are achieved from the company's private investments. We are therefore developing a model of making partial returns of capital from the proceeds from such events and will share further details in due course.' Edinburgh Worldwide said it continued to 'act on feedback from…shareholders'. It added: 'Recent engagement has reaffirmed broad support for the company's mandate and investment strategy and the board will continue to work diligently with the investment manager to advance our plan to ensure that the company delivers returns commensurate with shareholder expectations and reflective of the underlying potential of the portfolio companies which are looking to shape the future through innovation.'
Metro
2 days ago
- Metro
Experts reveal what could happen to countries that get dragged into WW3
Tensions in the Middle East have reached a boiling point after a tentative ceasefire between Israel and Iran failed today. The truce was broken when both sides fired missiles at each other, prompting Donald Trump to have a meltdown on live television after the deal he brokered collapsed. The US President ranted: 'They don't know what the f*** they're doing. 'We have to have Israel calm down because they went on a mission this morning.' At least 974 people in Iran have been killed, and 3,458 others wounded. In Israel, at least 28 people have been killed and more than 1,000 wounded in the war. On Monday, Iran launched a limited missile attack on al-Udeid Air Base, a large US military base in Qatar, in retaliation for the American attack on its key nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. Now, the world is watching amid fears of a wider conflict igniting across the region. Metro has spoken to experts about what's next for the Middle East: what's at stake, how the conflict could pan out and if World War 3 is a possibility. Talk of World War 3 is nothing new. For years, tense geopolitical moments have stoked fears that we are on the brink of a catastrophic conflict. Guney Yildiz, visiting fellow at the London School of Economics' European Institute, told Metro that previous world wars have broken out at unexpected moments during periods of heightened tension. He said: 'There's been talk of this 'World War Three' for over a decade now. I think when people are aware of this risk, it almost reduces the risk of accidents and miscalculations. 'Especially when everyone has so much at risk. It's unlikely that there will be a sort of 'Franz Ferdinand' moment, like there was in World War One.' Jason Pack, host of The Disorder Podcast and Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, pointed out that no Middle Eastern conflict has escalated into a world war. And there have been many. 'Two world wars have started in Europe,' he said. 'Arab-Israeli wars historically end when superpowers bring them to an end. Both the Suez War and the 1967 War were brought to an end by America.' Mr Pack described the current situation in the Middle East as this: 'If you and I are opponents for 46 years and all we want to do is destroy each other, and then we agree to a ceasefire without undoing the underlying cause, it's like you and your wife saying that you want to get a divorce, and then the mediator says: 'Great, just put this aside for a week.' 'You might be able to put it aside for a week, but if you haven't solved the underlying issue. There is an opportunity now for a peace negotiation, but we haven't seen that materialise.' However, not everyone shares this view. Dr Bamo Nouri, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of West London, told Metro the world is 'nowhere near' the end of this confrontation. 'We are, at best, in a pause, shaped by calculation, not capitulation,' he said. 'To view Iran's recent actions as a final move or a sign of weakness fundamentally misunderstands how this regime operates. Iran's leadership sees its survival and regional influence as existential, and it has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to absorb losses, act through proxies, and play the long game. 'The quiet that follows an exchange of missiles should not be mistaken for peace. It is often the eye of the storm.' So what's at stake for the countries involved, both directly and indirectly? In short, its very existence. In recent weeks, Iran's alleged nuclear weapons facilities have also been brought up, though there is no evidence to suggest they have weapons of mass destruction. But Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has faced years of challenge to his rule, beginning with the Women, Life, Freedom movement after the death of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman who was brutally beaten and murdered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Despite protests in recent years, both Mr Yildiz and Mr Pack agree that it's unlikely we will see a popular uprising to topple the government. But from external powers? They say we'll have to wait and see. For Israel, it appears the goal remains on destroying Iranian proxies and toppling the government, based on past comments from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Hamas, which launched the cross-border attack on October 7, is a proxy of Iran. 'The regime in Iran is a threat to our destiny, to our very existence, and to the fate of all humanity,' Netanyahu said last month. 'This is what will happen if it obtains nuclear weapons. If we lose this battle, the Western nations will be next.' Netanyahu has repeatedly made claims that Iran is creating weapons of mass destruction, a claim which has not been proven, but was the basis of their barrage of missile attacks, which sparked the conflict two weeks ago. In addition to destroying any alleged weapons of mass destruction, based on past comments from Israeli politicians, they also hope to topple the Ayatollah and the Islamic Regime to keep up their title of the 'only democracy in the Middle East'. Mr Yildiz said one of the stakes for the US is oil in the region, but it's important to remember that the US itself is also a large producer of oil. If the conflict were to deteriorate, Mr Yildiz believes the US elite would cash in. 'The US would make money out of higher oil prices, but that wouldn't be reflected for the average US consumer, who would pay loads more for the petrol they use,' he noted. 'Another layer to the US stakes is Russia. If the US is focused on Iran, talks with Russia and Ukraine to reach a ceasefire would become more convoluted. Iran and Russia are allies, so Russia would likely bring up the situation in the region when negotiating about Ukraine.' The US is Israel's closest ally, so whatever stakes Israel has in this conflict, the US more than likely backs them. For China, two issues are at stake: oil supply from Iran, through the Strait of Hormuz, and the Belt and Road initiative (China's plan for a 'New Silk Road'). If the Middle East is destabilised further, the cost of petrol in China will increase, placing pressure on an already tumultuous economy. It would also hinder their efforts to connect China with the rest of the world through transportation and energy, through the Belt and Road Initiative. Mr Yildiz added: 'If the region is unstable, they could use that opportunity of the US being distracted to focus on Taiwan.' As usual, Russia is a wild card. Not only do they have skin in the game with Iran, they also have ties to China and a tenuous relationship with the United States. Dr Nouri explained: 'Russia, facing pressure in Ukraine, would likely double down on its strategic partnerships with Iran to preserve influence and challenge US-Israeli dominance. 'These shifts could shuffle alliances, encouraging new pragmatic alignments such as closer ties between Iran and Russia, or Turkey balancing between NATO and Eurasian blocs – further complicating the region's already fluid power dynamics.' But some experts have also pointed out that Russia, which has supplied Iran with weapons before, is preoccupied with Ukraine, so it might not become as involved as they were with conflicts such as the Syrian War. What does the EU have at stake if the conflict spreads? Mr Yildiz had choice words for Ursula von der Leyen and co. More Trending 'The EU is a bloc of a very strong economy, which is punching well below its weight in international politics,' he said. 'They're divided – one group of states talks about sanctioning Israel, and others say Israel is doing their dirty work against Iran. They have little to offer the region. 'Before, it was democracy, liberalism, and human rights, but now that will have little impact due to their own inconsistencies. 'The EU is a bystander, but instability in the region does still affect them greatly.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: UK must prepare for 'wartime scenario' on home soil, security review warns MORE: Brit, 18, on first ever solo flight stranded alone in Doha after wave of cancelled flights MORE: Yvette Cooper seems more scared of red paint than Gaza's bloodshed
NBC News
4 days ago
- NBC News
U.S. braces for Iran's response after overnight strikes on nuclear sites
The United States, the Middle East and world oil markets are bracing for Iran's response after President Donald Trump launched punishing strikes on Iranian nuclear energy sites overnight, plunging the region into an unprecedented new phase of a decades-old conflict. The U.S. struck Iranian nuclear facilities, including the key Fordo site, with 14 GBU 57s, 30,000-pound "bunker buster bombs,' according to the U.S. military. It was the first time the United States has directly bombed the Islamic Republic. The next 48 hours are of particular concern, according to two defense officials and a senior White House official. It's unclear whether any retaliation would target overseas or domestic locations, or both, the officials said. U.S. bases and assets have been at their highest state of alert for months, but after Israel began warring with Iran on June 13, the officials, who spoke earlier in the week, said concerns were heightened even more about the potential for attacks on U.S. assets from Iran or its proxies in the region. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, meanwhile, warned of 'everlasting consequences.' Iran has already shown its capacity to inflict damage on its enemies. Since Israel's initial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Iranian missiles have pierced the country's vaunted missile-defense system, the Iron Dome, reduced apartment blocks to rubble, and killed at least 24 people. After the U.S. attacks, the nation launched a missile barrage into Israel Sunday morning, causing damage and injuries in Tel Aviv. 'Iran will try to redouble its efforts against Israel in order to show its determination to inflict damage on its arch enemy," Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, said. "We are likely to witness major escalation between Iran and Israel in the next few days.' However, Gerges added, Iran will try and avoid 'being dragged into an all-out war with the United States.' Iran's Revolutionary Guards argue that the sheer number and spread of U.S. bases in the region, where it has some 40,000 forces, are not a strength, but a 'point of vulnerability.' The U.S. has bases in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, among other countries. Last week it moved some aircraft and ships that may be vulnerable to a potential attack, and has limited access to its al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. It's unclear whether Iran could retaliate with missile attacks on U.S. or allied forces in the Gulf. Israel has managed to intercept many of the ballistic missiles and drones that Iran has fired over the past week. And it's also uncertain whether any retaliation will come directly from Tehran or one of its proxies in the region.
