Poor little Encana’s having a temper tantrum:
A lawyer for Encana Corp. is demanding the deletion of an Internet posting containing audio of an Encana executive swearing.
On Feb. 14, during a quarterly results conference call, microphones caught someone – Encana has not said who – muttering an angry expletive. The audible whisper followed a question from Canaccord Genuity analyst Phil Skolnick, who asked: “But in terms of new investment guidelines which were updated, do you think that prohibits a company like Encana from being acquired?”
…
Encana apologized after the conference call. The swearing does not appear in a transcript of the call, nor in a company replay of the audio.The company now wants the clip off the Internet, too. On Thursday, Chirbit founder Ivan Reyes said he has received a takedown request from Encana.
I wouldn’t have posted anything about this yesterday because somebody swearing during a conference call is stupid, but not interesting. A major corporation getting its shorts in a knot over a triviality and displaying the collective brainpower of a fourteen year old girl, however, is fascinating. Especially when the fourteen year old girl hasn’t even heard of the Streisand effect. One can only assume that Encana management is not very bright.
Speaking of less-than-intelligent corporate management, there’s a bit more news about Scotia Capital’s persecution of David Berry:
“IIROC will not be appealing the decision,” said Elsa Renzella, IIROC’s director, enforcement litigation.
…
One interpretation behind the decision not to appeal is that IIROC wanted to wash its hands of the whole affair after at least initially bending over backwards to accommodate the bank.How accommodating was IIROC? At the time, it said the following: “We are pleased that Scotia Capital recognized in this settlement that, even though supervision was not an issue, it would not be appropriate to retain profits generated by the wrongdoing of its employees.”
In normal circumstances, it would be tough for a bank to get such an overwhelming level of support, given that the Berry/IIROC matter had not been heard and given that almost six years later the three-person panel said that “the preponderance of evidence suggests” that Berry’s immediate superiors knew of his tactics.
…
And given the dynamics of Scotiabank upper management, a reasonable expectation would be that an attempt will be made to settle the matter [of Berry’s $100-million unjust dismissal lawsuit].The dynamics: the bank is undergoing a change, with chief executive Rick Waugh seemingly set to leave in the near term. If the pundits have called it right, it seems Brian Porter, who was named president late last year, will replace Waugh.
Porter was Berry’s ultimate boss at the time the supposed transgressions occurred. If the matter is not settled and if Porter were put on the stand, the session would be well attended.
Berry was vindicated on January 17.
There’s an interesting US court case about Mutual Fund Fees:
>According to a 1982 legal precedent known as the Gartenberg standard, the courts will deem a fund’s management fee excessive only if it is “so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.” In part because it is often difficult to isolate the portion of management fees covering the crucial work of picking stocks and bonds from other more mundane administrative costs, proving that has been virtually impossible.
Until now. In December U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb in Newark, New Jersey, allowed a case known as Kasilag et al. vs. Hartford Investment Financial Services to proceed, denying Hartford’s motion to dismiss.
…
According to Kasilag’s complaint, in 2010 Hartford earned $157.6 million in investment management fees from six of its sub-advised funds and paid $57.6 million for subadvisory services to Wellington and Hartford Investment Management Company (HIMCO), a Hartford subsidiary hired as a sub-adviser.
…
A key argument plaintiffs put forth in the Hartford case is that competitor Vanguard offers similar funds run by Wellington for much less. Both the Vanguard Health Care and the Hartford Healthcare funds are run by Wellington. Vanguard has a total expense ratio of 0.35 percent, compared with the 1.49 percent charged by Hartford Healthcare’s A share class. That’s on top of the 5.5 percent front-end commission paid to brokers who sell it; Vanguard’s fund is no-load. Wellington declined to comment on the Hartford case.
It was a highly uninteresting day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualPremiums gaining 2bp, FixedResets up 1bp and DeemedRetractibles off 1bp. Volatility was minimal. Volume was high.
| HIMIPref™ Preferred Indices These values reflect the December 2008 revision of the HIMIPref™ Indices Values are provisional and are finalized monthly |
|||||||
| Index | Mean Current Yield (at bid) |
Median YTW |
Median Average Trading Value |
Median Mod Dur (YTW) |
Issues | Day’s Perf. | Index Value |
| Ratchet | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.6332 % | 2,615.8 |
| FixedFloater | 4.09 % | 3.43 % | 24,714 | 18.46 | 1 | 0.4329 % | 3,971.7 |
| Floater | 2.54 % | 2.84 % | 84,793 | 20.09 | 5 | 0.6332 % | 2,824.4 |
| OpRet | 4.79 % | 1.88 % | 45,745 | 0.35 | 5 | -0.1309 % | 2,603.4 |
| SplitShare | 4.57 % | 4.08 % | 41,837 | 4.28 | 2 | 0.1592 % | 2,948.0 |
| Interest-Bearing | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | -0.1309 % | 2,380.5 |
| Perpetual-Premium | 5.25 % | 0.23 % | 82,402 | 0.09 | 29 | 0.0167 % | 2,354.6 |
| Perpetual-Discount | 4.84 % | 4.91 % | 130,197 | 15.58 | 4 | 0.0304 % | 2,648.7 |
| FixedReset | 4.89 % | 2.60 % | 277,758 | 3.05 | 78 | 0.0103 % | 2,503.6 |
| Deemed-Retractible | 4.87 % | 0.71 % | 146,082 | 0.25 | 45 | -0.0086 % | 2,438.2 |
| Performance Highlights | |||
| Issue | Index | Change | Notes |
| TRI.PR.B | Floater | 1.04 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2043-02-21 Maturity Price : 24.05 Evaluated at bid price : 24.30 Bid-YTW : 2.15 % |
| BAM.PR.C | Floater | 1.20 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2043-02-21 Maturity Price : 18.54 Evaluated at bid price : 18.54 Bid-YTW : 2.85 % |
| Volume Highlights | |||
| Issue | Index | Shares Traded |
Notes |
| GWO.PR.N | FixedReset | 194,650 | National crossed blocks of 49,600 and 28,000, both at 24.70. TD crossed 100,000 at the same price. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Hard Maturity Maturity Date : 2022-01-31 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 24.60 Bid-YTW : 3.31 % |
| SLF.PR.I | FixedReset | 79,856 | Desjardins crossed 52,500 at 26.95. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2016-12-31 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 26.79 Bid-YTW : 2.47 % |
| RY.PR.X | FixedReset | 70,810 | Desjardins crossed 50,000 at 26.75. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2014-08-24 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 26.68 Bid-YTW : 1.71 % |
| BNS.PR.Y | FixedReset | 50,810 | Nesbitt bought 37,900 from National at 24.81. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Hard Maturity Maturity Date : 2022-01-31 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 24.81 Bid-YTW : 2.93 % |
| IFC.PR.C | FixedReset | 47,503 | TD crossed 30,800 at 26.36. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2016-09-30 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 26.42 Bid-YTW : 2.73 % |
| ENB.PR.T | FixedReset | 38,230 | TD crossed 19,900 at 25.66. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2019-06-01 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 25.65 Bid-YTW : 3.54 % |
| There were 48 other index-included issues trading in excess of 10,000 shares. | |||
| Wide Spread Highlights | ||
| Issue | Index | Quote Data and Yield Notes |
| PWF.PR.A | Floater | Quote: 23.31 – 23.98 Spot Rate : 0.6700 Average : 0.5010 YTW SCENARIO |
| TCA.PR.Y | Perpetual-Premium | Quote: 52.30 – 52.80 Spot Rate : 0.5000 Average : 0.3694 YTW SCENARIO |
| TCA.PR.X | Perpetual-Premium | Quote: 51.60 – 51.90 Spot Rate : 0.3000 Average : 0.1963 YTW SCENARIO |
| BAM.PF.B | FixedReset | Quote: 26.20 – 26.50 Spot Rate : 0.3000 Average : 0.2192 YTW SCENARIO |
| TD.PR.O | Deemed-Retractible | Quote: 25.78 – 26.05 Spot Rate : 0.2700 Average : 0.1938 YTW SCENARIO |
| CM.PR.L | FixedReset | Quote: 26.40 – 26.59 Spot Rate : 0.1900 Average : 0.1198 YTW SCENARIO |