ING UK Real Estate IncomeTrust Limited is a new closed-ended, Guernsey registered investment company. The Company is managed by ING Real Estate Investment Management (UK) Limited, a member of the ING Group and one of the UK’s leading property asset managers with approximately £5 billion under management. The Company will invest, through its subsidiary undertakings, in property in the UK, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The Group has agreed to acquire the Property Portfolio, consisting of 54 properties and the Public House Portfolio with an aggregate capital value of £490.6 million as at 30 September 2005 through the acquisition of units in a Guernsey property unit trust. The acquisition is conditional on Admission. The Property Portfolio was specifically selected out of a larger portfolio, when it was acquired from the Abbey Group in August 2005. The selection was based on a number of key criteria including its income characteristics and geographical and sector diversification. The Investment Manager's in-house research unit’s views on the UK property market were also an important factor in the selection of the properties. As a result, within a balanced portfolio, there is currently a bias towards the office sector which reflects the research unit's positive view of this sector.
Copyright 2015 Edison Investment Research Limited. All rights reserved. This report has been commissioned by Standard Life Equity IncomeTrust and prepared and issued by Edison for publication globally. All information used in the publication of this report has been compiled from publicly available sources that are believed to be reliable, however we do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this report. Opinions contained in this report represent those of the research department of Edison at the time of publication. The securities described in the Investment Research may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. This research is issued in Australia by Edison Aus and any access to it, is intended only for "wholesale clients" within the meaning of the Australian Corporations Act. The Investment Research is distributed in the United States by Edison US to major US institutional investors only. Edison US is registered as an investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Edison US relies upon the "publishers' exclusion" from the definition of investment adviser under Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and corresponding state securities laws. As such, Edison does not offer or provide personalised advice. We publish information about companies in which we believe our readers may be interested and this information reflects our sincere opinions. The information that we provide or that is derived from our website is not intended to be, and should not be construed in any manner whatsoever as, personalised advice. Also, our website and the information provided by us should not be construed by any subscriber or prospective subscriber as Edison’s solicitation to effect, or attempt to effect, any transaction in a security. The research in this document is intended for New Zealand resident professional financial advisers or brokers (for use in their roles
In our opinion, the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, and the related statements of operations and of changes in net assets and the financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The Gabelli Global Utility & IncomeTrust (hereafter referred to as the “Trust”) at December 31, 2011, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These financial statements and financial highlights (hereafter referred to as “financial statements”) are the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits, which included confirmation of securities at December 31, 2011 by correspondence with the custodian and brokers, provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
If the Fund does not generate earnings from dividends and interest received and net realized capital gains equal to or in excess of the aggregate distributions paid by the Fund in a given year, then the amount distributed in excess of the Fund’s investment income and net realized capital gains would be deemed a non-taxable return of capital. Since this would be considered a return of a portion of a shareholder’s original investment, it is not taxable and is treated as a reduction in the shareholder’s cost basis. However, despite the challenges of the extra record keeping, a distribution that is occasionally supplemented with a return of capital serves as a smoothing mechanism resulting in a more stable and consistent cash flow available to shareholders. For a closed-end fund with a distribution policy, a return of capital becomes progressively less likely with the passage of time because in later years it is more likely that long-term capital gains can be realized and therefore become available for distribution. A portion of the distribution may be treated as long-term capital gain and qualified dividend income for individuals, each subject to the maximum federal income tax rate, which is currently 15% in taxable accounts for individuals. Long-term capital gains, qualified dividend income, ordinary income, and paid-in capital, if any, will be allocated on a pro-rata basis to all distributions to common shareholders for the year. Based on the accounting records of the Fund as of March 17, 2010, each of the distributions paid in 2010 would include approximately 15% from net investment income, 1% from net capital gains and 84% from paid-in capital. The estimated components of each distribution are provided to shareholders of record in a notice accompanying the distribution and are available on our website (www.gabelli.com). The final determination of the sources of all distributions in 2010 will be made after year end and can vary from the monthly estimates. All shareholders with taxable accounts will receive written notification regarding the components and tax treatment for all 2010 distributions in early 2011 via Form 1099-DIV.
responsibility of the manager. Sales commission fees in exempt markets are typically 10% on every unit sold. Charging no commission allows more of the investors’ capital to be put to work. The manager may intend to engage exempt market dealers to sell trust units in the future, and the dealers are likely to charge a commission; however, according to management, the manager needs unitholders’ approval prior to implementing sales commissions, and we believe, the ability to vote on this is beneficiary to the unitholders. Our discussions with management indicated that they may issue another unit class if and when the trust decides to charge sales commissions, and this would avoid any adverse impact on existing unitholders.
Each Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Code. As a RIC, a Fund generally pays no federal income tax on the income and gain it distributes to you. The Trustees reserve the right not to maintain the qualification of the Fund as a RIC if they determine such a course of action to be beneficial to shareholders. In that case, the Fund would be subject to federal, and possibly state, corporate taxes on its taxable income and gains, and distributions to you would be taxed as dividend income to the extent of the Fund’s earnings and profits. To qualify as a RIC a Fund must, among other things, (i) derive in each taxable year at least 90% of its gross income (including tax-exempt interest) from (a) dividends, interest, payments with respect to certain securities loans, and gains from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities or foreign currencies, or other income (including but not limited to gain from options, futures and forward contracts) derived with respect to its business of investing in such stock, securities or currencies; and (b) net income from interests in “qualified publicly traded partnerships” (as defined in the Code); (ii) diversify its holdings so that, at the end of each quarter of each taxable year (a) at least 50% of the value of the Fund’s total assets is represented by cash and cash items, U.S. government securities, the securities of other RICs and other securities, with such other securities limited, in respect of any one issuer, to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and not more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer and (b) not more than 25% of the value of the Fund’s total assets is invested in the securities (other than U.S. government securities and the securities of other RICs) of (i) any one issuer; (ii) any two or more issuers that the Fund controls and that are determined to be engaged in the same business or similar or related trades or businesses or (iii) any one or more “qualified publicly traded partnerships” (as defined in the Code); and (iv) distribute at least 90% of its investment company taxable income and 90% of its net tax-exempt interest income (as defined in the Code, but without regard to the deduction for dividends paid) for such taxable year in accordance with the timing
Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. The fund seeks to pay monthly distributions based on an annual rate of 8.5% of the fund’s average monthly net asset value. As a result, distributions may exceed actual earnings which may result in a tax return of capital or, to the extent the fund has long-term gains, distributions of current year long-term gains may be recharacterized as ordinary income. Income and capital gain distributions are determined in accordance with income tax regulations, which may differ from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Certain capital accounts in the financial statements are periodically adjusted for permanent differences in order to reflect their tax character. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or net asset value per share. Temporary differences which arise from recognizing certain items of income, expense, gain or loss in different periods for financial statement and tax purposes will reverse at some time in the future. Distributions from other sources, in excess of net investment income or net realized gains are temporary overdistributions for financial statement purposes resulting from differences in the recognition or classification of income or distributions for financial statement and tax purposes.
The weak oil price had a mixed impact on UK equities, supporting the earnings of consumer-facing sectors, while damaging the prospects of the energy sector. Travel and Leisure companies performed particularly well, as they are set to benefit from both lower input costs and increased demand resulting from a pick-up in disposable income. Financials were notable for their strength, as the improved economic outlook resulted in higher activity levels and lower impairments. Low bond yields resulting from loose monetary policy also helped support the performance of more defensive bond-like sectors such as Consumer Staples, pharmaceuticals and Utilities.
Whilst welcoming the better news on both the property valuations and the income performance, which together with positive returns from IPD indices reflects an improvement in investor sentiment towards commercial property, the Board recognises that the economic outlook remains uncertain. The recent emergence of both the French and German economies from their very sharp recessions, along with an expectation that the UK will follow suit by the end of 2009, is helping to underpin wider market confidence. Many asset classes have responded over the third quarter of 2009 with stabilising, and in many cases improving, asset prices.
trustworthiness. However, such a mechanism is vulnerable to malicious collusion. The development of effective mechanisms for dealing with collusive manipulations of online reputations systems is currently an active area of research.
On the other side, Salam, Iyer, Palvia, and Singh (2005) explored a framework to highlight the importance of nurturing consumer trust in the context of e-commerce. In particular, the authors pointed that the technical approaches to establish credibility and integrity are necessary but not sufficient for creating the long-term trusting relationships between consumers and online businesses. Web vendors must align both their long-term and short-term relationships with consumers and develop interventions to inspire consumer beliefs that affect their attitudes, intentions, and dependence, and ultimately their willingness to spend money. The Web vendors must address the factors affecting different belief classes to establish the trustworthiness of their organizations. They need a long-term approach to manage trust and generate a positive consumer experience from each and every Internet transaction. Quite a number of studies attempted to seek trust building factors and their relationships in order to propose guidelines or policies for
(iv) during the minority of any beneficiary under these trusts to accumulate any surplus income held on trust for such beneficiary and invest the same in accordance with paragraph (i) above and any such accumulation shall be added to the fund or share from which it was derived and shall devolve with such fund or share but the trustees may at any time apply any or all of such accumulations for any of the purposes permitted by these trusts as if it were income arising in the then current year
One of the main reasons for the current revision of the P&I Act is to provide a means for implement- ing the transition to an investment regime based on principles embodied in the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (1994), which incorporates the Prudent Investor Rule in the Re- statement (Third) of Trusts (1992). The introductory comments to the current P&I Act explain that the revision deals conservative- ly with the tension between modern investment theory and traditional income al- location, and is designed to ensure that, when a trust invests in assets that may generate little “tradi- tional” income (i.e., dividends, interest and rents), the income and remainder beneficiaries are allo- cated reasonable amounts of the total return of the trust (including both traditional income and capital appreciation of trust assets) so that both classes of beneficiaries are treated impartially. The Act also permits the trustee to pay an income beneficiary a “unitrust” amount, where the trustee determines income as a percentage of the annual fair market value of the trust’s assets, as well as the discretion to make adjustments between income and princi- pal to treat the income and remainder beneficiaries impartially.
The Board has carried out a risk and control assessment including a review of the Manager’s risk management infrastructure and the report on policies and procedures in operation and tests for the period 1 January to 31 December 2010 (“the Report”) that has been prepared by the Manager for its investment trust clients to the standards of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales Technical Release AAF (01/06). Containing a report from independent external accountants, the Report sets out the Manager’s control policies and procedures with respect to the management of its clients’ investments. The effectiveness of these controls is monitored by the Manager’s group audit committee which receives regular reports from the Manager’s internal audit department. Procedures are in place to capture and evaluate failings and weaknesses and ensure that action would be taken to remedy any significant issues identified from this monitoring, which would be reported to the Board. No significant failings or weaknesses in respect of the Company were identified in the year under review or to the date of this report.
We are aware of only one study, Kosfeld et al. (2005), in which researchers directly compare behavior between a trust game and its risk game analogue 2 . In their “trust” version, an investor and trustee were randomly paired, and the former endowed with 12 “monetary units” (MUs). The investor chooses to send either 0, 4, 8 or 12 MUs to the trustee, this amount is tripled, and the trustee is given the opportunity to return any integer amount from zero to their entire amount available (e.g., if the investor sends zero the trustee can return any amount between zero and 12). In their “risk” version, all subjects were investors with the same choices as in the trust game, but where a random
The premise of economics research in trust is the “economic man” hypothesis. Research methods include trans- action cost method, principal-agent method, contract method, game method and so on. The first three methods are related to the principal-agent relationship, contract and transaction costs, because the principal-agent rela- tionship requires constraint contract, while implementing the contract takes costs. In general, the transaction cost theory (principal-agent theory, contract theory) usually accompanied by game theory and the combination of both are between the trust analysis of individual and organization. Economic exchange relationship mainly re- fers to trade relationship based on rational calculation. This theory suggests that interpersonal interaction af- fected by maximizing the benefits and minimizing costs. Contact that defines the rights and obligations is ne- cessary to supervise and control.
I want to take a moment now to distinguish trust from another concept it might get confused with: reliance. In common parlance, it is true, we often do not distinguish between relying on someone and trusting them, but I’d like to suggest that there is an important distinction there that we ought to pay attention to. Reliability also has prepositionally modified forms as well as a more general, unmodified form, and I’d like to keep them both distinct from trust relations. Reliability has recently become an important concept in epistemology, but I think it is a big mistake to conflate that more or less technical concept of reliability with the concept of trust. Reliability as it occurs in recent epistemology is a concept defined in terms of statistical relations between well-defined (or at least (one hopes) well- definable) inputs to and outputs from some belief-producing process. There are related uses of ‘reliability’ in non-epistemic contexts: the relative reliability of FedEx vs. UPS can be ascertained by a study of the percent of undamaged, on-time deliveries they make. The reliability of a device, process, or system ultimately rests on its structure, the laws of nature, and other regularities in the world; it could be, with sufficient research, precisely quantified.
Mobile banking refers to the use of smart phones or other mobile devices to perform tasks online banking from your home computer, such as monitoring the account balances, transfer of funds between accounts, pay bills and prepaid top-up. Mobile banking is a new strategy for the bank to enhance their latest technology in a new dynamic marketing environment. The low penetration of mobile banking in Malaysia, especially in terms of adoption patterns is becoming the research interest, especially when compared to the total number of cellular telephone subscriptions. The penetration rate of mobile banking in Malaysia is still in the minority. One of the issues identified by a few researchers is the perception of trust. This article will discuss along the trust issue and its constituents and then after the intention to use of mobile banking services. The bank should enhance their strategy to improve and develop new strategy in order to gain more utilization and adoption on intention to use. This article attempts to discuss on the element of trust to benefit the service provider in Malaysia.
Some value was lost at the stock level, however, and the principal companies involved were miner BHP Billiton, banknote printer De La Rue, electronic parts distributor Electrocomponents and pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. The Company holds BHP Billiton, along with Rio Tinto, on value grounds as they are amongst the largest and most diversified miners with relatively low production costs compared to many other miners. De La Rue has come under pressure from overcapacity in the market and aggressive pricing by rivals. Electrocomponents experienced profit-taking after announcing disappointing results. GlaxoSmithKline continues to be overshadowed by bribery allegations in China and a poor drugs pipeline, but remains an important contributor to the Company’s income generation. The fixed income portion of the portfolio, which is mainly invested in highly rated corporate bonds, delivered a positive return over the 12 months. With investment grade credit spreads broadly flat over the period, the strong underlying performance of government bond markets was the main driver of returns. High quality bonds also benefited from their safe haven qualities at certain points of the 12- month period, for example, in early 2015 when plummeting oil prices, negative inflation numbers, the snap election in Greece and the confirmation of a larger-than-expected QE package from the ECB temporarily drove investors to seek so-called ‘safe haven’ assets.
A basic trust of tax authorities with respect to the honesty of taxpayers and a respectful treatment of taxpayers by the tax authorities must be accompanied by incentives for taxpayers to observe the rules of the game. If honest taxpayers reporting their true incomes realise that other persons report too little income, they may feel sucked by those people neglecting the basic rules of citizen duty. These considerations particularly hold in polities with direct democracy, since those voters who are frustrated about the uncooperative behaviour of a number of their fellow citizens will express this discontent strongly at the polls. This leads us to Proposition 4: