Member Info for LaGomera

For too long have UK "high-tech" companies struggled to secure adequate funding in their early and development stages and attract an informed shareholder base. Yesterday, we witnessed the resignations of the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister who openly criticised the Government greater concern for "welfare" than the defence and security of its people. "SpectralBlue's" alert over concerns about the " Defence Spending Plan" in his post on 3rd June, is well-made. Similar delays dog all technology, kit and maintenance suppliers to our once admired armed forces, no matter how dependent they are upon continued orders from our military. You see it from the leading, huge enterprises thru to the minnows.

Investors, who post on this great platform, and who hold shares in very small companies, such as Abingdon, will have noted that Company's share price performance and resilliance throughout the current market slide.

Kromek has a presence in US. Why not, go the whole hog and mimic Abingdon?

Of course, it might oblige the Board to improve shareholder communication. It might, also, attract one or two small institutional investors.

p.s.

I commend the Directors for establishing a "shareholder forum", whereby registered members can raise questions directly with Kromek, rather than too personally, nay, on occasion, abrasively.

Very hard to counter the disappointment that is expressed by Pageboy, Gonedownagain & Billybamboozle.

I hope that your fears are assuaged., by the next Annual Report.

Long Term Incentive awards are often received, positively, as investors prefer to believe that they signify "commitment". by Key Executives to a Company. I'm not dismayed to see this, however, I read this in the context of (i) a confident statement made that Kromek did not need to raise further funding, and (ii) that there has not been any stated, considered intention to introduce progressive dividends, aligned to increases in profitability.

How investment managers at small institutions weigh-up these aspects, will become evident in time, as "performance" is their concern. These aspects concern all shareholder returns, except, perhaps, outright "punters", and could become very important influencers of not only share appetite, but most importantly share price growth.

Kromek may well become a target for a trade buyer, which might result in a return for shareholders who have long held the shares, such as Pageyboy: I do hope so.

For my part, I await impending results as it's looking like a candidate for my "bottom drawer", as there are many other really interesting growth companies on the LSE. May bide my time before adding to my holding.

I wonder whether the Board has considered commissioning independent research by firms such as Hardman & Co?

Objective analysis might allay some doubts.

Good morning, Vascular, Rookie1, Geraldus, Howard249 & XsViolet,

Of course, I echo your delight, relief, hope, concerns and scepticism: Thank you.

Whilst the "changes" are blessed relief, I hope that the the ringing-in of these changes is not going simply a reflection of the machinations of our own Parliament. Long as the announcement is, there was insufficient noise about Working Capital. Hope is pinned on Stuart to address that aspect and to get that right.

As Andy Burnham stated, yesterday, on Question Time, "Things have got to change", and one thing that really has to change is not just a driver on a bus that may appear to some to be on a "Summer Holiday", but, for instance, the supervision of trading in the market.

I'm still bemused by the striking price of the transaction.

Everything crossed that Stuart will bring real drive and achieve success for both the Company and disillusioned shareholders and not more puff.

Vaya con dios.

In the real world, even complicated, small deals such as this, take time and are costly. How long have discussions leading to this transaction been taking place?

You are not moaning, "Ironknut", and your reasoning is correct.

But Kromek is an entity that has weathered many a storm and its CEO has been lambastered by short term traders.

Managing expectations, and in so doing, "keeping the market informed" is a skill.

Some folk loathe being bearers of what may be to them "unexciting news", but unexciting news or commentary does help to retain confidence.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll add in times of weakness, but prefer not to add when I sense that news and / or commentary are overdue.

An answer to the question, posed in the "subject" might be that the Board has announced a change in strategy, necessitating the liquidation of this trust's portfolio. However, SBO's portfolio is small and Schroder's status & clout in the City is still significant, four decades after "Big Bang", so shareholders are justified in asking, at the very least, "Why is progress so slow?".

As an Investment Trust, SBO publishes regular portfolio valuations, as well as Portfolio Rankings by market value of its main investments, and, of course, SBO publishes the resultant NAV per share.

In my opinion, the announced change in strategy, hasn't generated interest sufficient to reduce the discount on NAV per share to the market price per share; the absence of dividend offers no reward for a patient shareholder, and regular monthly updates on progress in change in direction might, at least, allay any despondency. C'mon ! More updates required, please.

Good morning, Escapetohome, and many thanks for your summary.

I suspect that your comments were interrupted:, and would welcome those other views that you hold, please.

Many thanks

Thank you, "Clued" and "TerryM1".

It does provide a token of comfort that a listed fund is an investor, however, professional, experienced investors have holdings that "underperform".

Board announcements highlight "income generated in each quarter". Little indication, nay prominence, is given to "operating costs".

Whilst one takes comfort from a 10%+ dividend yield, if one looks back over the last few years, the share price graph reveals a downward trend. OK: I accept that there have been fundraisings, but there have been several realisations, too.

The financial accumen of the Directors is considerable. Why doesn't the Board include "Asset Value per share" figures, per quarter?

Much as I like the business model and have a shareholding, a 10%+ yield, is of real value if growth in asset value occurs is reflected in even a modest increase in the market price, and it is not a 10%+ yield if the shares can only be sold at less than their original investment cost.

Could the Directors, with input from their expert advisors, please, produce more informative reports?

In my humble opinion, this can be done so easily.

My thanks to Troajan for providing this link, which encouraged me to look into Cardiogeni and to then make a token investment. Having been heavily involved in high tech for several decades, I waited for a further signal, before making further investment. It came with the news of an initiative in UAE, but again I waited until announcement of completion., as am familiar with gaps between complying with market rules to inform markets and reality. Promising, serious discussions can take many months to conclude, especially when minnows negotiate with mega entities.

Forgive me, Troajan, if I've not picked up a recent announcement, that would dampen my doubts.

Reviewing the Aquis announcements on Cardiogeni, this morning, I could not see an announcement of completion.

Can you, help, please, Troajan, if you're still an investor?

Moreover, recent transaction prices, published on Aquis, flag uncertainty , as they appear to be at too great a discount. Cardiogeni has made a flurry of announcements about the repayment of a convertible investment by a German "partner", but little else to hang one's hat on.

Has the JV proposal within the UAE been consumated?

TerryM1 and Borchardt:

AJ Bell credited my account on 18th May, more than a week after having received payment by the Company in Liquidation, without any word of apology, which is a sad reflection upon standards.

Nice to add cash in these far from certain times.

Very best wishes.

Thank you, Mike33

Thank you, "Bearraider" and thank you "Observation".

Each of your most recent postings assist in informing shareholders and, imo, they indicate to the Directors what could be done to become more transparent and inculcate a better understanding among shareholders.

When adding to my small shareholding, the first estimate that I feel compelled to make is whether the next quarterly dividend will be maintained & paid.

I have done so, modestly, on weakness in the sp.

I imagine that, as, perhaps, Directors with not dissimilar background from fellow shareholders, enjoy the comfort of knowing the underlying performance of their investment portfolio, and how much resource can be consumed by the "bad one" that one might, unintentially, make, they really understand how a modest improvement in information about the performance of unlisted investments, could have a beneficial effect upon, not just the prospective growth in sv, but also greatly assist when next raising further funds to either make new investments or to support existing "partners" who've encountered financial difficulties.

I concur, HH88.

What could help to create a generally better understanding and appreciation, would be if the Directors could allay latent fears of a dividend cut in the minds of ordinary shareholders, by providing regular portfolio performance updates on a quarterly basis. Notwithstanding the relative newness of this interesting company and its management team, increases in dividend have been few and the underlying performance of consituent investments is scarcely featured in reports other than when further rounds of development finance are provided to existing "partners".

Duke Capital has retained value during tmore recent, tempestuous times, that have wiped >20% off a large number of share prices and fuelled dramatic rises in energy costs, for which I'm grateful, but as dividend yields rise, elsewhere, investor choice widens and total return and certainty of return become increasingly important.

I like the move of Duke Capital into asset-underpinned, "Health Care": it has certainly served Harry Hyams, well and demand remains strong, imo.

Mine too, Fredfish, LifeOReilly, Mike & Johnny.

Unusual silence from the home team, as directions to make the payment transfers must surely have been made.

We'll hear something soon.

Oultonmike & Bubbles: I'm not as optimistic as you appear to be, so have just revisited the interview with Lee, some 8 or so months ago and ask myself whether "Funds of funds" ever actually deliver the goods for investors?

Unless shareholders are fortunate, what we have here appears to be a "fund" which invests in another fund, with a wonderful incentive scheme for "execs" and little upside for ordinary shareholders other than flimsy bags of shares to fling into the air, as if confetti, from a dazzling moment in a Cretan-like setting of "Mama Mia", when this boat can no longer raise further funds to pay its way.

One can see , alas, many similar instances littering the defunct companies yard, and contenders for this yard even in mining & exploration minnows that were recklessly hyped, of late. Even one of the underperforming investment trusts is returning cash to shareholders by realising its assets.

Is this minnow following-on in a painfully slow-flowing stream that witnessed the capsize of others?

Am not convinced, but live in hope, like everyone.

Vaya con dios!

Great, as always, to read your measured comments, Mark.

I take considerable comfort that PAR is a low cost producer, and I am also pleased to see diversification, abroad.

Now capitalised at £3bn and far, far beyond the dreams of the ex-cricketer / founding director, it is a core holding from which I hope to begin to see a progressive dividend stream to award continued support.

I share many of your views, sadly finding myself critical of shoddy performance in other companies, seemingly either by so-called advisers who perform "quick placings" at juicy discounts or by noneffective non-execs.

PAR still enjoys one or two good fundamentals even at these high gold prices.

Am comfortable as a holder throughout Donald's 2nd Term.

I empathise with Santi and Casey. Thank you for your comments and information.

This entire schemozzle needs to be thoroughly investigated and action taken, appropriately.

Judged, solely, upon the excellent trial results, thus far, prospects for the antibody and the Company are significant, HOWEVER, the marshalling of what should / could be a fairly simple fundraising have been crucified by the share price slide, and, implicitly, the rights issue price.

Perhaps, the Board of Directors might let all shareholders know what they were advised, and the reasoning, thereof?

Meanwhile, I await the formal offer.

I hope that this doesn't become the convoluted mess that some may fear.

After further quiet reflection following a re-read of the CEO's and the CFO's remarks, I hope that Dr Basu will seriously consider strengthening his Board in order to equip well this very interesting company for the next 5 years. Thereby, both he and the Company will benefit.

Too often do we see emerging companies douse their fundraising opportunities by succumbing to completing small , opportune "placings". I see this so, so often. A key marker, that separates the corn from the chaff, is when small company specialist funds participate. Whenever I see this happening, it ticks a box, simply because no fund manager worth his/her salt creates a new portfolio holding without being able to justify his /her decision to his/her Investment Committee.

IMO, Dr Basu was ill-advised to emphasise that the Company would not seek further funds and doubly ill-advised to assert that there was no immediate prospect of dividend payments. Far better to temper these remarks, especially in an unpredictable world.

Nevertheless, I was interested to hear that other companies that were suppliers to majors in this profitable segment, had been acquired by majors. This "exit" is a prospect, so I shall need to recategorise from "investment" to one to "collect, when the price is attractive, but be underweight."

Golden rule: Always vote against dispensation of pre-emptive rights.

Skid:

In defence of tuan6, the FD's comments were not succinct and my conclusion, having been aware about "factoring" and all manner of English wording used by banks and other approved lenders to "dress-up" loans and working capital facilities advanced to cash constrained companies, was that this was , perhaps, some such form of lending that has been agreed with HSBC, whose name was mentioned.

Perhaps, if anyone with Kromek or its corporate advisers read this post, they might deem it sensible to disclose this arrangement in a release or, at the very least, in Kromek's Annual Accounts, BECAUSE IT IS MATERIAL !!!

Never shoot the messenger !

Thank you, tuan6 / half-a-crown.

My reflections upon the answers given to the tabled questions, left me with certain strong impressions about the Company, amongst which are:-

1. It's technology is excellent;

2. It's prospects are very promising, indeed;

3. The CEO & FD are complimentary and there were only minor stumbles;

4. The categoric desire not to seek further funding from shareholders, when married with....

5. the ceo's categoric statement in answer to the question about when the Company might pay Dividends, poses a potentially, immense problem for it's brokers / corporate advisers in that institutional investors are attracted to companies by not only their growth potential., but also their dividend potential. In bear markets, dividend paying companies are often more share-price resilient.

Taken together, 4 & 5 beg how a profitable company will reward its key executives and what brake will be imposed by non-executive directors and the Company's corporate advisers on indulgences?

Greed knows no bounds unless intitutionally-led shareholders can hold Boards to account.

6. My support for the CEO and his considerable abilities remains and I shall take opportunities to resume my collection of a sensible shareholding.

7. In response to a shareholder question about manufacture in the US, I was relieved that the CEO confirmed that Kromek continues to have manufacturing capability there. My strong preference is to invest for the long term, not to churn or punt, and most certainly not to unfairly criticise executive directors. Too much of the letter goes on on "chat platforms".

Finally, my thanks again to 2&6, or half-a-crown.

Wise and succinct words from "allforprofit", but before anyone posts a response, there are one or two exceptions. However, cast your minds back to the extensive hype that propelled the price; the changing prospects; the discounted fundraising. How frequently do investors in high risk minnows see this?

Dream on, ye delusionists, who ooze confidence that multi-£ market share prices will ensue. None comment upon the wider mining market or the merger talks involving RTZ.

"allforprofits'" wise words should be heeded, and, might I add, whilst there is enjoyment to be had from investing in more speculative shares, only invest what you are prepared to write-off, the nano-second after you have parted with your money. Expert VC's expect to not make money from most of their investments, but to do so well from one or two of the "good-uns" that they can boast returns on their portfolio.

Enjoy the weekend and best wishes to all.