Point taken re certain Venture Capital Companies' challenges in a listed environment; but lets stick to the reality and facts, Afdawn is at this stage obliged to function within the JSE and other regulatory frameworks. Afdawn' stated vision is to be an investment holding company, or is it? The 'bump and dump' philosophy is a new Grindstone making.
On the 17th April 2012 (before selling out to Afdawn) Keet van Zyl proclaimed in a press interview; "Knife Capital is flexible about raising funds. We may look at raising a smaller (ouch) tranche of funding - maybe R100m-R150m - which will allow us to close off a fund and build a track record before testing the investment market again. The 'entry ticket' will cost between R20m and R30m, which means that pension funds and institutions, as well as 'super angel' funders offshore, will be the initial targets.".....
It must be noted that they were not successful in the above i.e. raising any funding and Afdawn was a last port in a storm for them, according to KvZ without the envisaged track record.
Regarding the past successes claimed as achieved by the KC team as managers of the HBD fund; Tim Harned of AGC was the sole financial adviser for HBD re the Fundamo HBD transaction which Knife Capital often claimed as a KC success (see AGC web site). Tim is often a speaker at the Grindstone exit-centric workshops...
Even the iKubu transaction was according to Franz Struwig of their own making (interview on KykNet), it may be that KC has done some lesser paperwork for an undisclosed fee on this deal - as there is no transparency we may only guess.
No kudos there! So without capabilities in their field of expertise what did Afdawn buy?
April 2014 Knife Capital sold a two year old seemingly insolvent company of which the balance sheet was bumped up with intangible assets of more than R10 million (to make the deal fly) to Afdawn for R10 million plus (please read the AD interim report to verify - 28th November 2014). So what can they lose? Who has done the independent DD on KC? My guess a related party, where are they now?
Regarding open and transparent communication; at the AGM the CEO said that they subscribe to the King 111 Report, inter alia the Board is responsible for Governing Stakeholder Relationships;
o Transparent and effective communication with stakeholders is essential for building and maintaining their trust and confidence.
o Complete, timely, relevant, accurate, honest and accessible information should be provided by the company to its stakeholders.
o Communication with stakeholders should be in clear and understandable language. (please note the interim report was presented in very complicated and peculiar English and a lot of double talk)
o The board should adopt communication guidelines that support a responsible communication programme.
These are facts and not emotion or blind believe, there are only two Afdawn Board members that are not in one way or another compromised by the KC transaction.
But let us wait things will pan out over time, the JSE may even have a say in the matter. Some people may think that the Afdawn Board is misleading the investor market by manipulating communications to suit the situation.