Bolton's China trust considers issuing more shares to meet demand

How many funds want to actively lower the price of their share!!!!! If it trades above NAV, so what. Maybe new investors will be discouraged from buying into the fund at that price, but in that case, demand will fall and the price will correct itself naturally!

What is the point of going into this fund at the start if they are going to try to minmise our returns. This cannot be in the best interests of the original investors

I agree with the postings above and now have another reason to add to the others as to why I haven't invested in this fund - hype and performances fees to name two.

I think I should sell now, before they devalue it. This sounds like quantitative easing to me. Any advice?

Surely existing shareholders will have to approve any issue that dilutes them? Failing this I too will be heading for the exit and my long term investment will become a short term, profitable, punt.

Once again we seem to be stumbling into uncharted waters.

I am inclined to agree with the other comments. If people still want to buy in at these prices, isn't that what "the market" is all about?

Also, as the fund was only launched in April 2010, isn't it a bit early to be artificially tinkering with the share price?

We took the risk when the fund started. Why should we allow Johnny-Come-Latelys to jump aboard the wagon and dilute our investment at this early stage?

Is it sheer greed by the Fund Managers?

Brilliant! When it launched in April they wanted to raise a billion quid. They only got £600m from the brave souls who decided to invest. Now it’s up 22% in 6 months so many people want in they are thinking of issuing new shares to lower the price? With fund managers like this, who needs enemies?

Surely they have a duty to their existing shareholders, not to people who would like to be shareholders but don’t want to have to pay the current market price? This smacks of Fidelity wanting to ramp their management fee by increasing their Funds Under Management, at the expense of the current share price.

Correction: their target in April was £650m, they raised £460m Still only just over a two-thirds take up though...

In my opinion the Trust is overvalued by the investment community. Overhyped, overcharged, any gain will be dragged down by outrageous performance fee and 0.5% annual backhander in addition to normal expenses.

How long will Bolton stay there?

I am going to stay with the professionals at Aberdeen and First State who have produced outstanding results over the years and have fair charges.

PS Red Rose, Issuing new shares is a normal activity for a successful IT and should not affect your long term investment. Of course Fidelity have been very clever with the fees because on %age basis, but this should not dilute of affect your investment. In fact, it might help you because the other fixed charges (yes there are these as well!) will be reduced.

Anthony Bolton has no track record for investment in China and the charges for this fund are exorbitant.I am continuing with Aberdeen which knows the area anand has reasonable charges.Their trusts also are at modest discounts and not hyped up premiums.

GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO HULK HOGAN

To me this is yet another reason to steer clear of China.

Have we got a new phenomenom here? ie a meta bubble? If something is overvalued and everyone piles into it we have a classic bubble as with China (or gold but the China fund is apparently a bubble surrounding a bubble. Interesting that institutional investors are steering clear though, what does this tell us?

Surely the gains the fund have made reflect the risk the original investors took.

If it starts trading at a loss will they bolster up the fund , I think not.

Hands off

I agree with the previous posters.

Changes to the financial structure of the fund should only be made to enhance returns, not reduce them otherwise they disadvantage existing investors.

When the fund was launched Bolton said that it was structured as an investment trust to avoid the danger of increasing scale reducing returns. Now that is exactly what Fidelity are doing. The only conceivable reason for this change is to increase Fidelity's management fee.

Interesting comment recently from Harhgreaves Lansdown that it's probably not worth buying in until Bolton leaves and then we will see the true value of the trust.

All agreed. When Bolton goes it will probably turn into another one of Fidelity's (now many) mediocre offerings and go to big discount.

I have as much respect for A Bolton as anyone else but the fees are outrageous for the work involved and he is not the only good manager.

The fees will always be a drag, increasing over the years and particularly if the trust has a good year. Also they set a very bad precedent for an IT, which should be resisted.

I note that Henderson are proposing to be paid partly by performance fee for Lowland Trust next year, despite James Henderson's abysmal performance for 2 years taking it from top to bottom of tables, only just recovering. I personally have a good percentage of my savings in Lowland so am quite concerned about these events.

Originally ITs were Trusts for the benefit of private investors, but the boards are being paid more and more for little work and in these cases can be argued are in the pockets of big groups and not looking after the interests of the shareholders.

Going back to Fidelity, does anyone know who owns them and where the profits go? All to USA somewhere? A Bolton almost singly must have made them hugely profitable, shame he didnt work for a UK Company.