I also think the lock-up was just part of the deal which happens with many SPACs.
I just re-read the announcement and I must say, for long term holders who experienced the Melbourne IT debacle, I was shocked to read:
"CDM’s investment process is to let profits run in profitable investments. Reducing CDM’s TMC position to simply reduce concentration risk would be contrary to the CDM investment process."
As I understand it, TMC is still pre-revenue. I have not done a deep dive into TMC, but just a cursory search seems to suggest there is a tonne of regulatory and legal risks still on the table.
IMO, to put it simply, I pay a fund manager to do two things. Pick stocks, manage a portfolio. Holding an 18% allocation to a single stock IMO is abdicating your responsibility from managing a portfolio and reflects poorly on your ability to find enough stocks to not be in that position.
"Reducing CDM’s TMC position to simply reduce concentration risk" - My question to Karl is this: if all your stocks were liquidated overnight at the closing share price, and you could buy whatever you want the next morning based on the last closing price - would you spend 18% on TMC? If his reply is "yes", then I'm sorry, but I think his process is flawed and he has not learned from Melbourne IT.
Some people like Michael Burry do things like that because they are that kind of fund with a famously successful record and who should now only have investors aware of and accepting of that risk.
Karl on the other hand has a record of messing up his record trying to do a Michael Burry and go big on a single stock and getting totally trashed as a result. He has sold himself as having learned his lesson and having a more portfolio based approach.
TMC may very well have opportunities to multi-bag from here still, but there remain regulatory and legal hurdles which could possibly result in another permanent destruction of capital.
At the very least, he is aware his investor base has no stomach for it which is why he is considering spinning it out into another vehicle.
But if he spins it out it into a listed ASX traded vehicle his investors should be rightly outraged. There is likely to be very little demand for it and it will be trading at a discount. If he spins it out, he should do it through an unlisted vehicle, letting investors to have the option to opt out, giving him a 6-12 month period to slowly sell the shares to avoid trashing the stock price too quickly and returning the capital to shareholders.
Remaining shareholders in the unlisted vehicle should be given the opportunity to give notice to redeem their holdings and the manager a maximum of 6 months to sell the stock and return their capital.
The time given to the company to sell shares is needed to avoid the situation where masses of investors demand cash, resulting in a fire sale of TMC shares.
It may not be the best idea and I'm sure there are others, but I reckon it's better than a listed ASX entity chewing up fees with holders forced to sell into an illiquid market at a discount.
Expand
(20min delay)