bossy

Correct me if I'm wrong but I can assume the natural progression of the conversation was, you questioning(pressurising) Mr Wagstaff on whether you should leave your funds under JB's management (Henderson) i.e. "making it clear one way or another" whether he remained as fund manager longterm.

 

This more than likely resulted in Mr Wagstaff, quite reasonably, contacting JB for a solid commitment to the future, JB was in a position where he can't guarantee the success of TBK's bid and wasn't prepared to gamble his future. Do you agree this was the likely series of events following your conversation with Mr Wagstaff?

 

We have no idea what decision JB would have made if TBK's were confirmed as successful bidders.

No, no no ........

In terms of Funds Under Management, currently I have approximately £xxx,xxx invested in your products, either directly or through the xyz platform; of which just over £xx,xxx is invested in Mr Bennett’s European Selected Opportunities Fund and £xx,xxx in your European Growth Fund managed by Mr Pease. The juxtaposition of these two Funds is something that has been exercising my mind since your acquisition of Gartmore last April and the fund integration in July 2011.

I am sure that his was purely for informational purposes to establish a common basis of communication and not any crude attempt to exert pressure.

Does Harris think that his 'clients' are happy with the positions he has held in recent years. Are they not a 'distraction'??

Mr Harris is no ordinary mortal, sir. His abilities rise well beyond those of a mere fund manager.

Apologies Darther, I can only see Alan Harris' comments. A gentleman I don't know personally, but up until now, is not doing too well on the trust worthy front.

 

What is more believable is JB giving his permission to Alan, to assure present fund investors was 100% focussed and wouldn't be distracted by any involvement with TBK. Then again who knows, we only have one man's side of the conversation.

I think it perfectly reasonable that, in his professional capacity, BH would not want Mr. Bennett to have any outside distractions. There are not many who have the ability, as BH has, to hold down two important roles at the same time.

you obviously missed this line then:

Should that not be 'allegedly agreed'?

Or, alternatively ....

'According to BH he agreed'.

Not suggesting that BH is telling porkies of course. But in the absence of any corroboration it is always better to be prudent.

There may be many reasons for the withdrawal of Mr. Bennett from the BK consortium and that withdrawal may not necessarily mean that he is not willing to invest in a share issue down the road. I am sure there are many of us who have turned down opportunities because we did not feel we had the time to do them properly. It is, therefore, gratifying to know that BH is able to perform his role as Chair of Supporters Direct in Scotland while giving his undivided attention to the financial interests of his clients. Further, we should be grateful to his remarkable insight in realising that Mr. Bennet would be unable to do the same for his clients. Clearly, Mr Bennett is not made of the same metal as BH.

I must also applaud BH for his tenacity in contacting Mr. Bennett's employer and especially realising the importance of going over Mr. Bennett's head when needed. After all, Mr. Bennett may not have realised the risk he was taking and I am sure that BH has, to a certain extent, saved him from himself. We are, indeed, fortunate that BH gave a full account of his actions on here. Otherwise, we might still be in the dark about what kind of person he is.

You just blew it pal.

You just admitted trying to nobble the management letter behind the backs of the board and trying to pass off your comments as those of the auditor.

Any credibility and integrity you might have had just went out the window.