Member Info for Takayama

There's a useful article in The Economist today "How to avoid a green metals crunch". Directly relevant to Kallak. It would be useful for the BEM board to be thinking along those lines.

Invest Genius - I have to admit I have difficulty in understanding how a share buy back would actually benefit anyone except short term holders expecting a quick profit. For example, if there was a buy-back and it pushed the SP up to 5p as. a result of there not being enough sellers on the market, then presumably all those short term holders who are looking for quick profit would sell and the SP would fall back down? I'm not sure how that would materially benefit the fund or investors (as opposed to short term speculators) - in fact, the only thing it would do is transfer cash directly from the fund to short term holders? It's fine for short term holders to make a buck, but it doesn't sound as if it was in the funds' interest to simply reward people expecting a buy back. It isn't as if we actually produced something, in which case, we would all get a larger slice of profits on dividend day as a result of a buy back - increasing the intrinsic value of each share. My recollection is that the board said 'everything was on the table' rather than 'we're going to buy back shares'. Please feel free to correct me if I missed something.

It'll be hard to make a judgement on whether the next investment is a good one or not at the time of the investment being made from where we are sitting. The board will inevitably have better insight than us. We are shareholders with access to the internet. They've got access to experts, the companies directly and other investors. They'll be much better informed that we will. So there is an element of trust in that intellectual and relationship capital the company/board has - and that's what should produce the risk/reward relationship here. As shareholders, we will only really know when the investment is liquidated whether it has proved to be a good investment. Up to that point we've less insight than the board. A decent track record of returns will be the proof that there is value in the board. Short term promises by the CEO will just push us off course (that was really a terrible mistake by Ed to speculate publicly on the sale value of LEAP). The 'enterprise' value here is the value that the board can bring in terms of their contacts and their access to experts to inform decisions. On both counts, they are better placed than me. Sometimes you will end up with lower than expected returns, but if you aren't able to extend that trust to the board, then this probably isn't the investment for you. Investing in cannabis, life sciences, lab produced palm oil - they're all things that sit healthily in my view of growth areas, potentially explosive growth areas. And frankly, I don't have as good insight to what is on offer at the 'seed' stage as the board does. Nor would I even be able to stump up the cash in a way that spread my risk sensibly (eg minimum investment in NL I recall was around £25k?). From where I'm sitting, the most recent investments in Avextra, NL and CFG have all been decent investments and hopefully will show themselves as such. That will bring back the 'enterprise' value that sits within the board. And so we should lose that discount to our cash holdings once the market is convinced that the cash won't simply be squandered. Recent history suggests that the board will retrieve a positive reputation and so be investable, but perhaps I'm in a minority at the moment. There isn't such a thing as easy money. There is risk. But there is also reward. Recent history suggests we're coming off the bottom rung of the ladder. Fingers crossed.

mat. a large holder usually sells out if there is some fundamental issue - a disagreement on strategy, a massive **** up, a fundamental failing in some part of the company. they won’t sell up to pay for a new kitchen or a new car! there’s been rough times in the last couple of years, but let’s face it, we’re in a better , clearer position now than ever. i personally hope ed won’t feel tempted to act like a small time ceo and over promise. the value in this fund is that it does give me exposure to investments i wouldn’t have exposure to otherwise. i’d like to characterize them as medium risk high return. sentiment (and that’s all it was) drove us to these pitiful levels but there is value here. a share buy back (if it happens) i may provide an exit point for some but the value runs deeper.

It seems that the ‘market’ IS coming around to being convinced. That Mcap is still way below cash holdings let alone market value has very little to do with a board/CEO failing to convince the market. It’s got everything to do with sentiment. Luckily sentiment is now catching up with reality. Whose to say we don’t get a tick up all the way to 7p? There may be some profit taking, but at least the strategy is clear. Greater liquidity in the fund, use the network(that’s the greatest asset i’d suggest) and reinvest. My scientist friends say CFG technology is a winner. That’s what I’m watching for next. Forget about 60% return there…. (which means, I wouldn’t be surprised by an even greater return). Gla

Looking at data from the last three years (so far), there seems to be a direct correlation between the number of comments and SP movement. More comments than trades brings SP fall. Less comments than trades appears to have a positive effect. The larger the gap between number of comments and number of trades, the better and more sustained is any increase in SP. Check out the graph on bit.ly.******.

It looks rejected to me, and we’re now at appeal stage. Clarke’s line” will take into account the significant amount of time and investment ” is an unfortunate one and whilst it smacks of desperation (“they’ve gotta be nice to us because we worked so hard!), I’m sure it wasn’t meant as so. Ultimately, I think it’ll get approved (why on earth would such a fantastic investment be rejected-every developing economy would welcome more jobs!) but there’ll be a cost. Let’s see how it plays out. Probably more cost for EML in set up/investment stage, meaning more jobs and slimmer profit margin…. . In any case, we now know that any delay to expected news likely means bad news….

Dagenham. Always appreciate your posts. Yes, if I had known, I wouldn’t have invested. But that’s what it is sometimes. A loss. The point is that I don’t see failure here. I see an over enthusiastic CEO, who needs to learn when to NOT COMMENT, because there is nothing investors like less than a CEO that over promises. It takes a long time to get back on track. I don’t feel deceived in any way though, and neither do I feel that this is badly run, nor are any of the investments poor investments. If Ed is more careful from now on and stays away from telling us what a great deal we’ll get in six months, or anything that hints at a complete deal before a deal is actually made, then we will get our credibility back. I, for one, have seen this behaviour before, and wish I had spotted it earlier. But I, like many, simply couldn’t believe people would continue to be so stupid as to sell so far below NAV. But they have. And I bet Chris Hutch is out now given he hasn’t had his quick return either…. . But the thrill of the ten or whatever bagger is still attractive to me. So I’m still going to stick around for a long time yet. Because it will happen here.

I'd prefer a CEO that shuts his cakehole tbh and lets results speak for themselves. Musk is a prime example of a CEO who is slowly learning his lesson. Far more damage done by CEOs giving constant 'updates' which turn out to be either emotional spouting or things that change with circumstances. And as for the SP? Pffh. Forget it people. This is what risk is. Live with it. You'll get your rewards in due course. Trading at 21% to SP? There'll be a readjustment and it won't be thanks to a CEO spouting off again. In fact quite the opposite. And the last thing we need is another bubble to help those too frustrated to hold.

It didn’t sound like a buy back was off the table from what Ed said in the interview. It would need to be significant at this stupid price really…, so perhaps the MMS are just involved in a big tree shake to fulfill that order?

Dagenham and Longlad - I don't agree with what you are writing, but I have to say I find it hard not to smile when I read your posts. They are hilarious. The way you are trying to outdo each other with the level of acidic bile you write, it's great work! You guys would make a great double act. Keep it up! A good distraction to an otherwise dull day.

The problem with a bug back is that any increase in price as a result may increase SP, but only as long as no one sells. As soon as you have a few sellers taking a profit , then the ‘value’ of the buy back is lost. It’s a straight transfer of funds into the hands of those people who have bought for a quick buck. NAV of company shrinks as assets are liquidated via those profit takers. Better option would be to liquidate the whole fund. But then, what’s the point?

Hi Sam. I appreciate your balanced approach. The difficulty I’ve got isn’t negativity. I’m fine with negativity. It’s when posters make stuff up and pass it off as fact. They aren’t the investment clever dicks they like to think they are. They know as much as the rest of us here and perhaps less. A little humility goes a long way.

Bad luck Midas. Wrong again. Seems you don’t know what you’re talking about. You have lots of belief in your own ideas, but let’s face it, they are consistently wrong. One point to take away is that the naysayers here are less likely to have any firm grounds for their negative speculation. Makes the future look rosier here.

Midas. We saw you said something similar about SWB, and events proved you wrong. Fine having opinions but yours don’t really appear to be based on knowledge or facts. The reality is that it is guess work what we’ll get for the CLNs for all of us retail punters at the moment until we see the actual outcome.

SWB sold for 7 million pounds this week. We've got outstanding CLNs of £200k at 8%, and 5 % of the company, right (that was the first £250k CLNs converted to equity)? The 5% cost us £250k so for £450k investment over two years we get a return of around £600k - roughly 25% return over two years. Anyone got more time to go through the figures? Sorry, I've scrolled through the many posts of banter and haven't found anything, so apologies if missed. If you can repost, that'd be great. Cheers.

There's a general downshift in appetite for risk stocks at the moment, regardless of how great the company may be. The mood is 'risk averse' at the moment, and this is likely to have contributed to BEM's current SP malaise. BEM is a risk stock as are so many others on AIM. Cash is king at the moment. It'll turn. But when is the question. Could be tomorrow. Could be in a couple of years - or more.

Premium Bonds my friend. Premium Bonds.

I have to admit to feeling tempted to sell my holdings here. You watch the SP drop and it is painful. Really painful. Better end it by cutting my losses and just getting out? But I have to constantly remind myself that there isn't anything fundamentally wrong here. The volumes pushing this down have been pitiful. Why on earth are people selling at a loss? Gambling on trading, hoping to get back in at a lower price? It's such a risk at this stage. We're massively oversold, and it's just the complete absence of interest in SEED at the moment that results in so few buys. Normally, investors would spot free value! Once there is something to spark interest, others will notice how undervalued we are compared to NAV (a pretty reasonable fact to inform a buy decision) and then pile in. It's such a risk to sell now and I'm surprised that still people sell!

I'd suggest the value of Ed is not necessarily in the value that he brings from such amazing work that is crammed into the few hours a week he spends here, but more on the rarity value of his network. And it's better than my network. That's what he gets our money for and why I wouldn't want to replace him. Look at his past history and that of the company for evidence of that. And ok, he may or may not be about helping friends line their pockets. But there'll come a payback time if he is helping them line their pockets (and if that is his only dimension). Ed isn't a fall guy. He wants to look good too, not just be the dumb getaway driver. So I believe that even if you're right (that he's lining his friends' pockets), there's still mileage in Ed's connections and the time will come where his connections will lead to a bright spot on his CV (so lead to a glowing endorsement of the brilliant work he's done with SEED - and a corresponding bump up in share price). The difficulty for Ed is that time is running out. Everyone in his social circle knows he's CEO of SEED, so he's either viewed as a failure (if he continues to blame others) or as a crook (if his rejoinder is that he's helping his mates) to his social circle. But he'll be saying that he's going to be pulling a cat out of the bag. And I reckon he will genuinely be trying for that. And that will come from within his private network. I'd point to CFG, for example.