Something that may be worth highlighting when writing up companies is how liquid their shares are. For example, ANIC had less than 10 trades last week. Whilst we wouldn't invest into most AIM stocks expecting high liquidity, this one is highly illiquid and probably worth mentioning. Some of the shares you discuss (such as DEC, TEK) have a lot more liquidity with hundreds of trades per day.
It's a very good point, although liquidity itself can be, er, fluid. TEK was fairly illiquid until recently for example. DEC, being of the FTSE250, you would expect to be liquid also.
That was a great iteration.Thank you so much for this summary and conprehensive overview.
I withdraw "fair" from my previous comment. Since the word fair is very interpretable.
Clearly if the fee structure is displayed isolated, it seems reasonable. I don't disagree. Would have loved to see the performance based fees continue to be tied to actual share price increases as it has been until 2021. However NAV apparently is the standard.
I stick with questioning the Integrity though. Lots of promises. No action. I elaborated in my past commends on what I mean and what promises have not been kept.
One last thing to add in this context. Since the determination of NAV is where actually some magic happens, I would love to see a change to a new auditor in order to get some new eyes on the price. Why so? Because as a matter of fact, management promotes the huge (40-50%) discount to NAV (they say the real value) in many interviews. However and in spite of the announcement of a share buy back program to be executed between October - March, neither did any buy back happen nor did any insider buy. Both no insider and no share buy back executed creates doubts. This in combination with many missed go to market announcements leads me to question the integrity.
Something that may be worth highlighting when writing up companies is how liquid their shares are. For example, ANIC had less than 10 trades last week. Whilst we wouldn't invest into most AIM stocks expecting high liquidity, this one is highly illiquid and probably worth mentioning. Some of the shares you discuss (such as DEC, TEK) have a lot more liquidity with hundreds of trades per day.
It's a very good point, although liquidity itself can be, er, fluid. TEK was fairly illiquid until recently for example. DEC, being of the FTSE250, you would expect to be liquid also.
That was a great iteration.Thank you so much for this summary and conprehensive overview.
I withdraw "fair" from my previous comment. Since the word fair is very interpretable.
Clearly if the fee structure is displayed isolated, it seems reasonable. I don't disagree. Would have loved to see the performance based fees continue to be tied to actual share price increases as it has been until 2021. However NAV apparently is the standard.
I stick with questioning the Integrity though. Lots of promises. No action. I elaborated in my past commends on what I mean and what promises have not been kept.
One last thing to add in this context. Since the determination of NAV is where actually some magic happens, I would love to see a change to a new auditor in order to get some new eyes on the price. Why so? Because as a matter of fact, management promotes the huge (40-50%) discount to NAV (they say the real value) in many interviews. However and in spite of the announcement of a share buy back program to be executed between October - March, neither did any buy back happen nor did any insider buy. Both no insider and no share buy back executed creates doubts. This in combination with many missed go to market announcements leads me to question the integrity.
Integer … possibly a new derivative of the noun “integrity” ? Just a wild guess though!
Not invested in this one (unlike DEC and TEK) but an interesting illustration all the same. Keep up the excellent work Oak Man !