George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Anthony Chow presented at the master investor show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5CgR9G-DDI
While addressing multiple critical points, the slides were carefully crafted and clearly in favor of Agronomics looking at what and how data has been presented.
Nevertheless he talks about some of the negatives. This is great.
However, the message is still the same: "We are victims of the macro env conditions" "We are going to be much better than the plant based products" "Yes the shareprice is bad -- however look how bad out competitors are"
No word regarding the fee structure and no word on what institutional investors feedback at this point of time.
Personally I would have loved to see more emphasis on their credibility and some examples of why Agronomics Ltd. is trustworthy and integer place to invest.
There have been five "unknown" relative high value and value trades today.
Anybody can make sense of it?
or
Knows who that could be and whether these trades have been buys or sells?
@Dearmal
I did the same. I experience Anthony Chow to be very responsive so far even to critical questions . Also they added another section to their homepage regarding the fee structure. not really adding lots of information. However at least they try.
Another strategy I want to suggest is getting in touch with the major shareholders and ask how they see the situation and especially the fee structure. And then whether they would be willing to push the topic using their leverage. Because from what I know Anthony cares a lot about them and holds regular calls with institutional investors in order to keep them happy or aquire new ones.
Nutraco Nominees Limited 41,366,455 4.16%
Hargreaves Lansdown (Nominees) 40,579,646 4.09%
Chase Nominees Limited 39,239,575 3.95%
HSBC Global Custody Nominee (UK) 35,000,000 3.52%
@gosan This is fmpov stretgically, following venture capital firms, the correct thing to do. On a empirical and rational basis it is recommended to not always invest in follow up rounds but rather do it once in the earliest state since the piece of the cake is the biggest in the earliest stage. Further down the road one can double down on obvious winners like liberation labs. But generally the best strategy in venture capital is investing once and waiting. So at least here the Agronomic Management acts somehow reasonable and in line with common practise in the industry.
@dearmal
For collaboration I can create a accessible Google sheet and share the link here.
We need to understand and use the system and applicable process that supports creating some pressure on the question around Jim's fee and the structure.
Who is in for it?
Well, two points here.
Where is this form? What's the official process? How to prepare.
We can create a Google drive shared folder if everyone is willing to share an email ID for this porupose in here.
Second: in this case we have to consider what the possible reaction could be from the directors. It's a bit a game theory.
does anyone has access to this report?
and
is canacord genuity actual independent to agronomics and jim mellon or do they have any reltationship?
https://*********************/companies/uk/agronomics-limited/research/canaccord-genuity/emphasising-precision-fermentation-and-portfolio-progress/85_12d4a96b-5f81-402b-a464-0cf3f302435d
Do you have any source link in order for me to be able to do my own due dilligence?
@Dearmal
What is this Agrarian. Do you have any link?
Because I can't find anything about it online.
@100Cups
Givent that the NAV was calculated in a somehow accurate ballpark. Whatever this means in the case of Agronomics which holds multiple underlying non profitable companies is another story.
I would love to see a new companies other than KMPG reviewing the books. Just to get some new eyes on the price.
Considering this I'm not so sure whether we are 50% below intrinsic value. If it would be that easy than everybody would buy.
He didn't tell whether they still intend or not. The announcement to be clear was a "maybe" back then anyway.
Anthony Chow from Agronomics answered it to me via email.
Anthony told that they are in a closing period and not permitted to purchase stock.
Is anyone in this forum more knowledgeable on this subject matter?
Since I'm wondering how the hell they are in closing period for the past six month then.
How do other companies manage buy backs?
@The.Italian what do you mean by "IIs"?
The Shellbay issue is well known. Actually this blog post did two through analysis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the fee structure and think there should be at least some more details released in terms of what exactly was charged within a certain period of time. To say, "well this is what you buy into" would be too easy, since the fee structure got a major update in 2021. This update made the High Water Mark Model independent from the actual share price.
the author has two posts.
https://theoakbloke.substack.com/p/a-nicking-from-private-investors
BMB5DJO TBH --- I haven't read up it again. So not sure anymore what exactly is the case.
@BMB5DJO
From what I understand, their should be an RNS and direction approval before they execute. Isn't it?
You can write Anthony Chow directly. In the past he has responded. Or find a way to place these question with a higher weight. I.e. get some of the institutional investors on your side and convince then it is worth stressing these questions.
Again, what are your ideas to add some weight on these questions?
Can You explain in laymans language and without abbreviations?
this is exactly what changed. the story of agronomics for long time was that the market is to blame. however, the past month had great news for agronomics underlying companies. the market itself changed. many biotech companies turned.
simply put, the story that the market is to blame simply doesn't hold true anymore and considering the great news during the same time, i wonder whether many investors are just not okay with the intransparency provided. therefore i believe it is time that agronomics management explains in more detail what the ******* fees are for that made up ~15% of the operating profit. 3,4 million of 25 million (virtual profit -- ******* virtual) -- for what exectly? 3,4 million pound is more money than some of the investments taken.
this discussion has to be held independent of right or wrong. i
greetings
One idea is to reach out to BlackRock, JP Morgan Asset Management, Jupiter Asset Management etc. In order to ask them to use their weight and push for more Focus on shareholders value. These are the biggest investors.
Any other idea?