Member Info for antelope

Presumably the NV of the combined buninesses would simply be the two added together. Would it? Or is that not how it works? If it is, then surely the share price can only go one way?

You may be right. But it does suggest that things are becoming a bit frantic.

https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/china-byd-snaps-up-six-african-lithium-mines-to-get-ten-years-supply-of-ev-battery-materials

Might be better to get it via the link on here:

https://gcndev.wpengine.com/blog/2022/06/07/report-from-the-annual-general-meeting-in-wyld-networks-ab/

https://news.cision.com/wyld-networks/r/report-from-the-annual-general-meeting-in-wyld-networks-ab,c3581350

An NFT is a link, intergated into a blockchain, to a jpg file on a server. Just the link. If I sell you an image as a NFT, and you buy it, you hsve no rights whatsoever over the image. I cold even chnage it and there'd be nothing you could do. The market in them is crashing.

As for crypto..
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/04/crypto-has-crashed-can-it-bounce-back

Tern's portfolio is light years better than Pires'.

When is the vote?

In fact (one more, sory) I'd go as far as to say that it's possible Akers et al realise Piri is a dead duck and have fed AS a line, which he's swallowed hook line and sinker, with a view to getting their hands on Tern's asets.

Finaly, (and then I'll shut up), Akers et al strike me as a bunch of self interested wide boy. I think AS would get eaten alive by them. Was there not some action a few years back where Akers almost became involved in Tern but declined because Tern refused to organise in a certain way, or something. Anyone remember?

Someone on advfn made the point that, by acquiring the invetsees in Piri, we can sell one of our existing investees and still retain the number of invetsments required to maintain our status as an investing company. Is this true? How many invetsments do we need to retain that status?

Neither Pluto nor NFT interest me in the slightest. The whole crypto market is calming down fast and is unlikely to return to the frenetic levels seen recently as the novelty has passed and too many people have ben burned. Have you seen how NFT trades have fallen in recent months? The whole concept is daft anyway. I have a collection of digital art and have considered NFTing it, but I wouldn't buy an NFT so am reluctant to ask others to.

Piri own 20% of SVV, and SVV own modest proportions of 13 investees. So Piri own very modest indeed portions of those investees. It's a crock of crap as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't it come down to whether or not the investees in Piri are collectively worth more than 20% of our portfolio? As they stand at the moment. Less any further fund raises.

I mostly agree with Wardy I think. I'd prefer Tern to grow conventionally. I don't like Pires and never have. I can't find the numbers on their website now but in the past, I've noted that the percentage holdings they have in their investees is very modest. But I don't agree that this would move "the goalposts further and further away from any exit". I don't see how it would affect the timing of any exit.

I do wonder what Chris Akers' view on this is. Presumably he approves or it wouldn't have got to this stage. If anyone will be looking after his own interests here it'll be him. Are those interests the same as ours?

At the risk of repeating myself, we just don't know enough to make an accurate judgement.

Geo, a major problem with this merger is the risk of having to 'share' the proceeds of a DA sale with Piri shareholders. The clause you point out seems to say that this would not be the case were a DA disposal to take place before the Tern/Piri merger. So you optimism seems wholly dependent upon an imminent disposal of DA. And we don't know that's going to happen.

Quote "....by reference to a record date falling on or before the date on which the Acquisition is completed"

One caveat... in the past, AS has always refused to guarantee a dividend. He's always said that the preferred option between a dividend and share buyback would be chosen at the time depending on prevailing tax rules. And I suspect your 70% may be on the high side anyway. But of course I don't know for sure.

Geo, thanks for that. Certainly gives me pause for thought. I'm back on the fence with this, having pretty much decided to vote against.

The ask on the OTC closed at 60p equiv.

I wish I could take AS into a pub and have a quiet chat. The big doubt I have about my stance on this Pires thing is that there might be a lot more to it than is apparent. I can't help but wonder if, after a pint, AS would say something along the lines of 'Look, if we do this, then I can A, B and C. And if I can do that, then we can D, E and F. But I can't declare this publicly as it would undermine our negotiating position.'

Trouble is that we as shareholders simply don't know enough to make a confident appraisal. As usual. And I'm simply inclined to err on the side of caution.

Rhodi, opinions on most boards tend to be too extreme. For my taste, you're too extreme on the positive side and the trolls of course on the negative. Most talk rubbish. But I also believe that talking about multi billion pound exits is misleading. It is, in my humble opinion, plausible that DA sells for as much as a billion, IF the US public sector takes up KS on a wide scale and especially if a bidding war were to break out. If the unthinkable happened and it sold for more, that would be great but it's daft to anticipate such a scenario. I've always held that DA will sell for between 300 and 500 million, and even then only when it can assure propsective buyers that future growth is assured, or the buyer sees the acquisition as strategically beneficial. SAAS model tech startup companies are notoriously hard to value as you have to value on anticipated future earnings only, as past incomes will be fairly meagre... a feature of a model that relies upon renewed and growing subscriptions. Growing at what pace?
300-500m is fine. It would provide Tern with a very large cash injection.

I don't know which of the three people I have green boxed just posted, but it's amusing to see a box appear after each of my posts. Perhaps they don't believe they're green boxed and that I can't read whatever tripe they're coming out with. Honestly scumbags, you really are greenboxed. Honestly. And despised too, honestly. But if you want to waste your time, please carry on.

If we sold DA for a proper sum - and I don't mean cloud cuckoo billions, although I don't completely write off the possibility of perhaps one billion - then I bet we could use the procedes to buy into two or three far juicier prospects that anything that's in Pires' stable. I looked at them years ago and felt that A/ not a very impressive portfolio and B/ tiny percentage holdings. Tern are in a far stronger position imo.

You start a business, grow it and make some money, and use that money to expand. You don't start the busines, grow it some way, make nothing and scrounge some more cash from somewhere to expand.

On the other hand, the combined operation could be seen as a fairly substantial player. And by combining operations, cost per investee should reduce as it'l be a more efficient operation. But I'm not sure how that benefits us shareholders. We just end up with a smaller piece of something that's proportionally bigger. It's not going to speed the pace of asset disposal and consequent cash generation. I suppose AS would argue that there are a lot more assets to potentially sell and therefore more opportunities to generate returns. I suppose so. But I put my trust in Tern about 6 years ago. I want to buy a modest house for myself. I'm still waiting. At 63, I'm running out of patience. And I don't, after all this time, want to give 20% of the proceeds to a load of Pires newcomers. Not in exchange for what I see as small holdings in a weak portfolio.

Sell DA. Use the cash to buy some more decent investees. Grow properly. I'm voting no.