The newly listed company closed its first day of trading with a market capitalisation of $580.2 million – up 8.4 per cent from the listing price of $2.50 per share.
There were 3,604 shareholders at the beginning of Monday, with the top 20 shareholders representing 51.95 per cent of the register.
It was a lacklustre first day of trading, with only $136,231 worth of Evans Dixon shares changing hands.
The company raised $169.5 million pursuant to the offer under its replacement prospectus, dated 5 April.
Commercial law firm Minter Ellison advised Evans Dixon on the listing and IPO.
Along with Dixon Advisory, Evans Dixon operates though its other subsidiaries Evans and Partners and Walsh and Company.
Dixon’s promote one property fund to their clients and it is there own. It is not externally rated by any research house and with its fee structure it would not given a positive rating by any research firm. Under FOFA they have an obligation to act in their clients best interest. How does this pass the test. Are Dixon’s saying their property fund is better than Charterhall, Cromwell, AMP, Australian Unity and Centuria all of whom have excellent independent ratings and very long track records but none of which are on the Dixon’s APL or appear in their clients portfolios. ASIC needs to investigate this arrangement. The RC has been critical of the big groups but they have external managers in each asset class and set an independent research house rating hurdle. If this fund blows up it will make Storm Financial look a storm in a tea cup.
I guess all those new shareholders are hoping the forthcoming restrictions on vertical integration don’t extend to the greatest consumer gouging vertical integration scam of all… SMSFs.
How is a SMSF a scam? Its a vehicle… If most people understood how they run and gave appropriate advice to those clients who actually suited a SMSF then it would be happy days. Honestly you can run SMSF very cheaply and even more so with the move to up to 6 trustees. How is a properly run SMSF consumer gouging?
I think the key to it is [i]”those clients who actually suited a SMSF”[/i]
In reality there are very few consumers who would incur higher costs from a competitive public offer fund, than all the typical costs associated with an SMSF. There are very few consumers who are suited to the role of fund trustee and all the legal responsibilities that go along with that. (Let alone 4 or 6 such people in the same fund!). There are very few consumers who need the additional investment choice and control from an SMSF that can’t be achieved quite simply in many public offer funds these days.
In short “those clients who actually suited a SMSF” is only a tiny proportion of those clients who actually have an SMSF. It raises the question of whether all the other SMSF clients have been recipients of conflicted, inappropriate advice. A question many more people are now asking after Sam Henderson’s RC appearance.
“It raises the question of whether all the other SMSF clients have been recipients of conflicted, inappropriate advice.” Ok, so do you know who gave most of the 500,000+ SMSF clients their advice? Hint, it was not Financial Planners.