Normal
While we are on the topic of performance reporting, some listed investment companies seem to have very strange reporting standards for performance figures. For most LICs the "performance" figures they claim always seem to be higher than what common sense would dictate.For example Platinum Asia Fund (ASX code: PAI) in its July monthly update declared its performance since inception in late Spetmeber 2015 was 15.5% (after fees and expenses). Yet the NTA was only $1.10 pre-tax and no dividends have yet been paid. The floating NTA was around $0.98 (listing expenses meant the NTA was below the floating share price of $1.00). So how does an increase from around 98 cents to around 110 cents (roughly a 12 to 12.5% increase) constitute a 15.5% return?ASIC and the ASX really need to tighten up their definitions of how performance is calculated.
While we are on the topic of performance reporting, some listed investment companies seem to have very strange reporting standards for performance figures. For most LICs the "performance" figures they claim always seem to be higher than what common sense would dictate.
For example Platinum Asia Fund (ASX code: PAI) in its July monthly update declared its performance since inception in late Spetmeber 2015 was 15.5% (after fees and expenses). Yet the NTA was only $1.10 pre-tax and no dividends have yet been paid. The floating NTA was around $0.98 (listing expenses meant the NTA was below the floating share price of $1.00). So how does an increase from around 98 cents to around 110 cents (roughly a 12 to 12.5% increase) constitute a 15.5% return?
ASIC and the ASX really need to tighten up their definitions of how performance is calculated.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
