No. Trade Date Description Total Cost Net Consideration Received Gain / (Loss)
1 29-03-22 Suria Capital 158,875.49 115,707.35 (43,168.14)
2 01-04-22 Suria Capital 28,756.47 21,275.87 ( 7,480.60)
Total 187,631.96 136,983.22 ( 50,648.74)

Trying to put back the misalignment above.

In the quarterly report dated 31-05-2022, the following disposal of investment is published in Bursa announcement:-

Disposition of Investments from March to May 2022 (4th Quarter 2022):-
Net
Consideration
No. Trade Date Description Total Cost Received Gain / (Loss)
(RM) (RM) (RM)
A B C = B - A
1 29-03-22 Suria Capital 158,875.49 115,707.35 (43,168.14)
2 01-04-22 Suria Capital 28,756.47 21,275.87 ( 7,480.60)
Total 187,631.96 136,983.22 ( 50,648.74)

The investment in Suria Capital Holdings Bhd was first made at least 14 years ago.
The above sales constitute only a small portion of its existing holdings.

Performance:
(50,648.74) / 187,631.96 x 100% = (26.99%)
A loss of 27% on its investment.

Considering its long term value investor claim, holding a “valued” stock for so long but then decided to dispose of part of its holdings at a loss of 27%, do you think it is a wise move?

And TB is giggling by himself at this stalemate.

No update by ICAP on
Originating Summons No. WA-24NCC-517-11/2021 ICAP v. City of London Investment Management Limited
which was supposed to be heard by the High Court on 30 May 2022.

With the management fighting against its shareowners, I am afraid not many new investors will be interested to invest in ICAP.

Yes, I agree with Mr dumbMoney, ICAP should publish the full court judgment for dismissing the injunction application by ICAP and may be explain why ICAP Management think they have valid reason to think otherwise.

Correction:
The last paragraph above:
"He had probably been thought more if not only Keynesian economics..." should read as:
"He had probably been taught more if not only Keynesian economics..."

Talking of University of Chicago, the Chicago School of Economics and the “Chicago School of Thought” spontaneously come to mind.

The Chicago School of Economics definitely should not be belittled if you value knowledge and intellectual pursuit.

In the past century (1901-1999), after the second world war, the world of economic thought was mainly divided into two views.

One is Keynesian economics which advocate government expenditure for economic growth. The other is Milton Friedman’s monetarist economics which advocates control of money in the economy.

Up to today economic policies around the world have be formulated around these two theories with modifications here and there.

Milton Friedman is one of many Nobel Laureate from the Chicago School of Economics.

By the way, TTB studied economics in UK. He had probably been thought more if not only Keynesian economics which was founded by John Maynard Keynes of UK.

Selling by the fund manager's related party if not himself, will depress the share price further. Again contrary to his talk.

Nepo and DumbMoney, could the sales be again a mistake in the announcement? If not, it is an outrageous departure from his talk.

A great manager, or for that matter any righteous person should honour his words, walk the talk and be prepared to admit mistake and make amend.

Akuji87, thank you for pointing out. I have indeed made a mistake in glossing over the annualised return for annual return. Need to further strengthen my skill.

I have reworked on the annualised return based on Bursa announcement and found that they are basically similar to what is shown on iCap's 2021 annual report.

I sincerely apologise to all readers and iCap for the blunder.

I will be deleting this post afterwards.

Akuji87, thank you for pointing out. I have indeed made a mistake in glossing over the annualised return for annual return. Need to further strengthen my skill.

I have reworked on the annualised return based on Bursa announcement and found that they are basically similar to what is shown on iCap's 2021 annual report.

I sincerely apologise to all readers and iCap for the blunder.

Evelyn11, you said the day 1 is referring to 28feb 1994 (you guess, by referring...)
So you are guessing? Well don't guess. Why don't you ask ttb to state clearly what date he is using and what data is he using for each date when he plot the graph. That was what I have been asking in my comment. Asking iCap to be transparent in what they do. Especially when ttb tell us that the annual report is the place where investor should pay attention to for iCap, and not the financials. This he has emphasised all along. So definitely I will want to drill into the report and let known what appears to be amiss.

I have raised my questions by email to iCap on 13 Nov 2020 before the 16th AGM which was held on 28 Nov 2020. But my questions were mainly swept under the carpet and sidestepped in the AGM.

So this is the only way I hope to share my findings with fellow shareholders.

You can refer to my blog on 13 Nov 2020 titled: “Questions to be asked in the 16th AGM” which were the basic questions that I had written to the Chairman of the Board.

I had also emailed further questions to the Chairman on 23 Nov 2020. The questions you can find in my blog of 23 Nov 2020 titled “Further questions to be asked in the 16th AGM”.

I have also talked about the limitations for questions to be raised in the AGM in my blog titled “From Company AGM to Parliament Sitting” on 7 Dec 2020.

We need alternative channel to voice our concern.

Mr Fairplay, only great managers dare to admit their mistake.

Mr Observer123, yes, you are very observant. There is at least one place where there is a discrepancy or omission.

But my interest is more on why he chose to announce the intended dealing on 30 September 2021 before the announcement of the quarterly report of 11 October 2021.

The actual transactions only falls on 25 October 2021 and 1st and 3rd of November which are all after the publishing of the quarterly report. Therefore there is actually no need to make the intended dealing in closed period.

So he was probably trying to create the impression that there is going to be some insider movement which may move the price of the counter.

Of course the result is as you know, only a few drops of water falling into parched sand.

iCap's 17th AGM is coming. For those with inquisitive and critical mind, please go to my blog: 4Dview. My findings about the 2021 Annual Report is published there. One in English published on 21-10-21 and another in Chinese on 02-11-21. as follow:-

足以媲美苏格兰抵押贷款投资有限公司？？？ - Nov 02, 2021
iCapital.biz Matching Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust PLC (SM)? - Oct 21, 2021
资本投资 - 比较关闭式基金和开放式基金的业绩表现 - Dec 11, 2020
iCapital.biz - Comparing performance of Closed-end fund to Open-ended unit trusts - Dec 10, 2020

有关我在十一月廿七日至十一月廿八日在上面讲过有关资本投资章程第173的话，我要在此收回。
因为经过再三仔细研读原来章程条款173 之后，我发觉在原来的173条款里，公司董事的确没需要在2020年大会提出普通提案寻求是否继续5年，而是只在2025 年才需要如此做。

对于我的这个错误给大家引起诸多不便，我在此深深致歉！

Regarding the following earlier comment posted earlier:-

{{ KKG10Y，本来公司章程的173条款是说董事部需在2020年（就是第15周年）大会上提呈普通议案寻求是否延长自动清盘日期5年至2025年。不过在2016年第十二届大会上已经通过修改173条款，董事部只在2025年大会上才需要提呈延长5年的动议。所以股东们要擦亮双眼，多多关注公司动态。
25/11/2020 10:56 AM

KKG10Y ICap 在南洋商报的信函。
https://www.enanyang.my/%E8%B4%A2%E7%BB%8F%E6%96%B0%E9%97%BB/%E8%B5%84...
KKG10Y先生
关于上文第2点，虽然招股书没提，但原本的公司章程173条款的确是说到了2020年，会让股东选择继续或解散基金。 而这第173条款的确是在2016年12届股东大会上被特别议案修改为展期至2025年才需要作延长与否。
为正视听，大家可以参考Bursa Malaysia 的 29-08-2016 资本投资12届大会通知的附录（Appendix），修改第173条款的确是以特别提案在12届大会通过。

在2017年第13届大会虽然也有特别提案修改章程，但173条款只是改号码而已。大家也可以查查2017 年资本投资在Bursa Malaysia 的通告的31-05-2017年报（年报附录2017年大会将修改的章程条文）。
里面只是将原来的172至174条款改为175至177, 文字没改。

所以2020年展期至2025 年才决定继续或解散的确是在2016年大会特别议案敲定的。
27/11/2020 6:34 PM

KKG10Y先生

Regarding the 2 and 3 points in iCapital.biz letter to eNanyang, although the Prospectus did not mention that come year 2020, the share owners can decide whether to continue to carry on the business of iCapital.biz or to wind up voluntarily, it was indeed stipulated in Article 173 of the original M&A.

And this Article 173 was indeed amended by special resolution in the 12th AGM in 2016, to the effect that the choice of continuing or automatically extending for further 5 years duration is thereby extended to start in year 2025, i.e. 5 years later.
To avoid misinterpretation, its best that you refer to the announcement made in Bursa Malaysia about the 12th AGM notice (the Appendix inside) dated 29-08-2016. But it is a bit tricky to read. Mind you.

In the 13th AGM in 2017, although there is a further amendment to the M&A (or Constitution now), the original Article 173 was amended by number only. There was no change in its content.
To avoid misinterpretation, again you are requested to refer to iCapital.biz Annual Report dated 31-05-2017 (with Appendix) in Bursa Malaysia. Again, a bit tricky to read.

Therefore the fact remains that the extension for making the decision to continue or not was indeed extended by 5 years from year 2020 to year 2025 through an amendment to the Article 173 in the 12th AGM 2016 by special resolution.
27/11/2020 7:00 PM

https://www.enanyang.my/%E8%B4%A2%E7%BB%8F%E6%96%B0%E9%97%BB/%E8%B5%84...

My above 2 comment refers to the above link.
27/11/2020 7:37 PM

In the mean time, if some of you have access to discuss in eNanyang, please forward my observations on 27 Nov above to them.
28/11/2020 1:11 PM

The above is on points of fact and can be checked from Bursa Announcement. Although to read the article wordings may need some patience. You also need to refer to the 2016 announcement for AGM as well as the 2017 announcement, plus their appendixes to piece them together .
28/11/2020 1:16 PM }}

All my above comment are now withdrawn because after further careful reading of the wordings in the original Article Clause 173, in the year 2020, the directors indeed need not propose for ordinary resolution to consider continuing for a further 5 year. Rather the directors only need to propose for such ordinary resolution 5 years later. i.e. year 2025. The amendment on Article 173 in 2016 has not changed this fact.

My sincere apology for the mistake and all the inconvenience caused to all of you.

The above is on points of fact and can be checked from Bursa Announcement. Although to read the article wordings may need some patience. You also need to refer to the 2016 announcement for AGM as well as the 2017 announcement, plus their appendixes to piece them together .

In the mean time, if some of you have access to discuss in eNanyang, please forward my observations on 27 Nov above to them.

As I have told Mr DumbMoney, I had little hope that my questions will ever appear. Although I have sent in my first letter on 13 Nov 2020 and my second letter on 23 Nov 2020, none of them has managed to be tabled at the AGM. And seeing that my questions did not come out, I have also resent my questions on the spot. Yet they were swept under the carpet.

This is why I said before, in the AGM environment, there is not much chance for serious questions to be discussed. I had not harbored much hope before the AGM and now the result actually turned out as what I have anticipated.

As the disappointment is not unanticipated, I will continue to participate here and also put up more posting in my blog in future if there are more issues to be discussed.

https://www.enanyang.my/%E8%B4%A2%E7%BB%8F%E6%96%B0%E9%97%BB/%E8%B5%84%E6%9C%AC%E6%8A%95%E8%B5%84%E5%8F%8D%E9%A9%B3%E6%8C%87%E6%8E%A7%E6%AD%A3%E8%A7%86%E5%90%AC

My above 2 comment refers to the above link.

https://www.enanyang.my/%E8%B4%A2%E7%BB%8F%E6%96%B0%E9%97%BB/%E8%B5%84...
KKG10Y先生

Regarding the 2 and 3 points in iCapital.biz letter to eNanyang, although the Prospectus did not mention that come year 2020, the share owners can decide whether to continue to carry on the business of iCapital.biz or to wind up voluntarily, it was indeed stipulated in Article 173 of the original M&A.

And this Article 173 was indeed amended by special resolution in the 12th AGM in 2016, to the effect that the choice of continuing or automatically extending for further 5 years duration is thereby extended to start in year 2025, i.e. 5 years later.
To avoid misinterpretation, its best that you refer to the announcement made in Bursa Malaysia about the 12th AGM notice (the Appendix inside) dated 29-08-2016. But it is a bit tricky to read. Mind you.

In the 13th AGM in 2017, although there is a further amendment to the M&A (or Constitution now), the original Article 173 was amended by number only. There was no change in its content.
To avoid misinterpretation, again you are requested to refer to iCapital.biz Annual Report dated 31-05-2017 (with Appendix) in Bursa Malaysia. Again, a bit tricky to read.

Therefore the fact remains that the extension for making the decision to continue or not was indeed extended by 5 years from year 2020 to year 2025 through an amendment to the Article 173 in the 12th AGM 2016 by special resolution.

KKG10Y ICap 在南洋商报的信函。
https://www.enanyang.my/%E8%B4%A2%E7%BB%8F%E6%96%B0%E9%97%BB/%E8%B5%84...
KKG10Y先生
关于上文第2点，虽然招股书没提，但原本的公司章程173条款的确是说到了2020年，会让股东选择继续或解散基金。 而这第173条款的确是在2016年12届股东大会上被特别议案修改为展期至2025年才需要作延长与否。
为正视听，大家可以参考Bursa Malaysia 的 29-08-2016 资本投资12届大会通知的附录（Appendix），修改第173条款的确是以特别提案在12届大会通过。

在2017年第13届大会虽然也有特别提案修改章程，但173条款只是改号码而已。大家也可以查查2017 年资本投资在Bursa Malaysia 的通告的31-05-2017年报（年报附录2017年大会将修改的章程条文）。
里面只是将原来的172至174条款改为175至177, 文字没改。

所以2020年展期至2025 年才决定继续或解散的确是在2016年大会特别议案敲定的。

Let's see what answers the Board have to give to my questions.

KKG10Y，本来公司章程的173条款是说董事部需在2020年（就是第15周年）大会上提呈普通议案寻求是否延长自动清盘日期5年至2025年。不过在2016年第十二届大会上已经通过修改173条款，董事部只在2025年大会上才需要提呈延长5年的动议。所以股东们要擦亮双眼，多多关注公司动态。

Those of you who think my questions are valid, please second me by sending in your letters. You can copy my questions or use your own questions. The more the better. (But keep to the main issue of dual-listing as priority).

I think this will be in my further questions in the 16th AGM.

iCapital.biz has on 18-10-2019 announced in Bursa that it has written officially to COL that it has infringed the 20% limit and also has asked it to reduce the shareholding to within the limit. As far as iCapital.biz is concerned, it has discharged its duty. It is actually the onus of COL to divest to come within the 20%.

Therefore it is an anomaly that iCapital.biz has to take the trouble to go for Judicial Review which is unnecessary and not to the benefit of the common share owners.

By having institutional investors in iCapital.biz, it can in fact increase the rational investor portion and reduce the noise trader portion. This should eventually narrow the gap between the NAV and market price.

iCapital.biz should welcome institutional investors instead of chasing them away. This is an unbelievable paradox.

As keen tracking of a company by newspaper is an economical means of propaganda for any company, if iCapital.biz were to shun the newspaper (hopefully not) , is it the best move?

I notice from iCapital.biz Bhd's website that its newspaper media report on (or after) AGM were recorded until the 11th AGM (2015). After that there is no more record. Personally I have also not read any news on the company in local newspaper that I used to read. What has happened? Has the newspaper media lost their interest in reporting iCapital.biz? Or is it because iCapital.biz shunned the newspaper or some thing else?

Can any one recall when was the last time you read about iCapital.biz Bhd's news from any of the major newspaper whether English or Chinese or Malay after 2015 AGM? This will be included in my further question in the 16th AGM.

Further comment on iCap's NAV return is now posted.

我的“iCapital.biz-再论资本投资的净值增长” 已经登出。

Further comment on NAV return will be posted soon.

Back to the question of M&A (or Constitution under CA 2016). I have obtained the digital M&A from Karex Bhd within 2 days (rounded up). Compare and contrast with that from iCapital.biz who after more than 2 weeks told me that I can get a copy from SSM. For a small investor who can find out the HKEX dual-listing requirement within a day, I think iCapital.biz has grossly underestimated my ability to give such an answer.

Enlightening information. I am considering putting up further questions in the 16 AGM.

If you have submitted your Proxy Form and subsequently decide to appoint another person or wish to participate in iCapital.biz electronic AGM by yourself, please write in to

bsr.helpdesk@boardroomlimited.com

forty-eight (48) hours before the meeting, to inform our Share Registrar of your intention to revoke the earlier appointed proxy.

假如在你寄出代理授权(Proxy)之后，你后来决定要自己出席资本投资的虚拟大会，你可以在大会召开48小时前（即26-11-2020 早上九时前）电邮以下地址以撤销你的授权：

电邮地址：- bsr.helpdesk@boardroomlimited.com

Mr DumbMoney, there is no indication of where the data are sourced or derived from.
That is why it is not possible to verify. This is one of those things that my question 2 in the questions to be asked in the 16th AGM wants transparency of.

I have inserted in my blog: iCapital.biz 第十六届股东大会 28-11-2020

In the mean time, I would like to remind for those who are attending the virtual AGM, please be careful not to pick the e-proxy column (which is by default at the top) if you want to attend and don't want to give away your proxy. You should choose the second one which one which is Virtual Meeting. I will attach a screenshot in my blog.

Thank both of you. But I think without seeing the Constitution I can guess the minimum shareholding will be 5% or 10% which no one single shareholder of iCap has. Can forget about it.

Thank you. That is why I have worded it Recipient/s.

Chinese version is now out. iCapital. biz - 在资本投资有限公司16届股东大会所应提出的问题已经登出。

Mr DumbMoney, as I have said in the forum here, I do not envisage we share owners can achieve what we wanted, due to the constraints of an AGM environment where opinions and suggestions are not given enough time and facility to be heard.
That is why I say forum is a better place where we can think and react more rationally.
And that is why I have taken the trouble to put forward my views here.
No matter what we can achieve in the AGM, I hope the common share owners like me can continue to watch the company's management move.
At the same time I want to reach out to the share owners who are well versed in Chinese. If some one says he is Chinese exert, I think I can show him what a not so Chinese expert can do.

I have posted the questions to be asked in the 16th AGM on my blog toady. The Chinese version will be ready soon.

Like what Mr DumbMoney has said, to increase the NAV is fund investment manager's job. Although we can put in our view, but the discussion will be protracted.

What we as shareowners can do is try to reduce the gap between market price and NAV. What we can do is to monitor on the management's moves in the public such as its public announcement, and the way its accounts are reported.

A company which complies with the minimum regulatory requirement can be called good.

But for a company like iCapital.biz, we as shareowners expect a higher grade than good. And to be considered as a great company (irrespective of its networth or market capitalisation), we need to improve on our transparency. And the word is improve. It should be a continual process of improving. Living on past laurel will breed complacence and complacence will lead to decline and ...