Excellent summary @jcmleng thanks for sharing

Yes @Noddy74 that completely pointless question on dividends had me wondering if the poor management were up there thinking what the hell sort of shareholder base they have :) Hopefully their faith is restored when they come on Strawman!

The "where's my fully franked dividends, otherwise I should have just negatively geared another investment property" is a common gripe at Aussie microcap AGMs.

Hahaha I think this picture and comment says it all

i reckon even he lost interest in the question half way thru asking

@Noddy74 , agree completely with your comment on the competitors - the replacing of the Emeco encoder with an AIM encoder for the City of Rialto deal was gold! My mindset is to cheer the hyper-scalers and AI companies as they improve this translation space - that raises the bar for AIM to achieve in the B2B space, which then further entrenches the moat/marketeability of Lexi.

Re: RSU's, I was probably like the Chair - braced for questions, expact none and if none, move on. I understand the sentiment of many on the RSU's but for me, AIM=Tony=AIM, so if the RSU's keep him motivated, that works for me. With the scaling ahead, it will become inconsequential.

@Shapeshifter , re: Gramps. I initially had the same "you have got to be kidding me" reaction. But when I stepped back to reflect, I thought, Wow, Gramps gets the AIM story, enough to put a chunk of his retirement money into the company - that surely must count for something in terms of the clarity of the story and the roadmap ahead!

Re: demo. Always a risk with live stuff. Even with a supremely confident Tony, I think it was a ballsy move. But I do think Tony wants to set it up such that he can refer to it in FY26 and say "see, the latency was rubbish in the AGM, but we have found a way to get the latency to sub-8 secs, and in FY27, we are now ready to move from EMEA to APAC as our FY27 region of growth focus ..."

Lol, Nearly spat my tea out reading that comment @Noddy74

How did mgt respond to Gramps question @Noddy74 ?

If they took a Buffet like position and shared they think they can reinvest at a higher rate of return then paying dividends deliver, then all good.

But If they didn’t then you can’t help but have some shareholders who won’t understand the plan. As @Strawman has said many times, you get the shareholders you deserve.

Pretty well on balance @Karmast

The Chair took the question, which is fair enough as dividends are a decision of the Board. I got the impression that Gramps is a bit of a serial offender as there seemed to be a bit of awareness between the two.

His response was centered around their stage of development i.e. growing technology company not yet at (nor near) maturity. He acknowledged there were different stakeholders and shareholders in the room and there would be a mix of motivations. Although I can't remember him speaking to rate of return, he did say that returning excess capital to shareholders would send a message that the Board had run out of ideas for how to deploy it, and so I think what you're talking about is implied in that answer.

If I had one criticism it would be that he was perhaps a little obsequious. He said the Board would discuss it as a result of getting the question, which I raised a bushy brow at. I can't see them paying dividends for some years, so if they spend even a minute in discussion about it, it's a minute they'll never get back!

Just on the Board - I should have mentioned this yesterday - both the new US-based Board members submitted prerecorded introductions and both are extremely well credentialed. I remember reading their bios when they were appointed last year and being impressed, but even more so in hearing it directly from them. The re-elected Director, Cheryl Hayman, was in the room and also spoke on her own behalf. She spoke well but there was quite an interesting moment when she said words to the effect of how she enjoyed working with and "undermining" management. She corrected herself and said she meant to use the word "underpinning", but it quite a funny moment.

@Noddy74 @Karmast yes that’s a fair summary. I found the board chair almost as rambling in his response as the questioner!

But the answer had the essential element ,…. Basically saying it is very early in the company’s evolution and they will be reinvesting operating cash flows in the technology and growing the business. (My words)

He made clear that investors’s interests will be served by share price growth. Specifically, he referred that the SP growth that will follow from the FY29 targets would reward shareholders richly (he’s right there).

He made it clear that growth will require capital, and clarified that this capital would be generated from operating cash, not new equity.

So, while he did not use the words that the returns from reinvesting capital in the business will exceed those from all other uses, it was essentially implied with his response.

I also agree with @Noddy74 that committing to discussing shareholder returns was unnecessary, however, I saw this more as placating the questioner, rather than having any substance.

Finally, I was also pleased to see the two US NEDs added. I agree they appear well credentialed and able to advise Tony in a way that really adds something to the existing Board.

Overall, I was happy with the content of the meeting, although also underwhelmed by the demos. However, I don’t think it was the best forum to showcase the tech, and it would have been good to have seen the in-room demos. I did like the info shown in the case studies.

Disc: Held

I agree @Noddy74 and with a lot of the thoughts posted about the AGM. Not too much in terms of new information, except for the real life case study of the municipality and the strong feedback provided. It goes to show how affective and productive Lexi voice can be in small government settings as well as larger government opportunities.

The most exciting thing I took away was hearing from Otto and Brad in person. While being pre-recorded and an election pitch. I couldn’t help but become bullish when hearing about their credentials and the way they viewed AI-Media’s potential to become a multi-billion dollar business.

The fact they already serve on multiple boards of listed, private and non-for profit companies, makes me wonder why they would join micro-cap ASX listed company board on top of all that. They must see potential in not just the company but in Tony’s vision, which we all know is to be lofty, but becomes more legitimate with the experience those two directors bring on growing products and services.

1H26 is looking to be a catalyst.

Disc. Held in RL & on SM.