Over the last couple of years, I have gotten into a somewhat odd habit of collecting and summarising feedback from institutional investors on what they value in great companies and where investor relations and governance can genuinely add value. And I have found that sharing this ‘direct’ feedback in conversations with management teams throughout the year is the most credible way to communicate what can be improved or done differently to attract institutional capital.

As I was looking through the blog this morning, thinking about the next topic to write about, I realised I had forgotten to post notes from one of the webinars I attended around the summer of last year. It was hosted by Ethos Investment Management, a US boutique investment management firm focused on investing in emerging markets, so I decided to pour a good cup of coffee and write it up.

Ethos runs an active, bottom-up investment approach, typically holding around 30–50 names in the portfolio, with a preference for small and mid-cap stocks across consumer, IT, and healthcare. Ethos was set up by James Fletcher, who previously worked at AGP in Hong Kong, a name that may be familiar to many here. Towards the end of the webinar, Ethos’s investment team shared several points they view as beneficial from an investor relations and governance standpoint. Ethos also actively engages with investee companies to drive improvements.

“Where we see material areas for improvement through ESG engagement we seek to partner with investee companies and advise them on best practice in order to enhance shareholder returns.”

So what are these material areas?

1. Enhance dividend payout ratio

When companies consistently return cash through dividends, to Ethos it sends a “credibility signal” and rewards minority investors for taking an interest in the stock. Beyond that, they look for management teams with a very well-defined capital allocation framework, covering also capex and M&A, and clearly explaining how these choices drive returns on invested capital. Ethos likes companies that first and foremost reinvest capital back into the business, but are equally clear on how excess capital will be used and returned to shareholders.

2. Elevate financial transparency

Ethos mentioned that they appreciate when companies provide granular segment data and context about what is happening in the business in an honest and frank manner with discussions about both opportunities and challenges. This echoes a point Ryan Floyd from Barca Capital recently made on a podcast noting that open and frank dialogue by the management teams builds trust and confidence.

3. Strategic buybacks with cancellation

“Support your stock with action.” Share buybacks followed by cancellation are viewed by Ethos as the most shareholder-friendly approach, as they demonstrate capital discipline and directly protect long-term shareholders. By reducing the share count, buybacks with cancellation increase ownership per share and signal management’s confidence in the underlying business,

4. Expand ESOP

“Turn management teams into owners”. Well-designed stock incentive plans tend to increase retention and also signal management’s long-term thinking. From best practice viewpoint, ESOPs should be aligned with incentives such as revenue growth, profitability, and ROIC targets.

5. Strengthen board independence

“Let independent voices guide big decisions”. Ethos likes to see management teams supported by boards with experienced and truly independent members as they are more likely to ask tougher questions around things like remuneration, growth, and risk. This acts as an important counterbalance to management and improves overall governance quality.

—

Many of the points raised by Ethos are not new and largely reinforce how professional investors think about governance in practice: as a framework for building trust over a very long time horizon. In many organisations, investor relations often acts as the conduit for these ideas internally, helping to surface, suggest, and implement practices that ultimately make the company more attractive to long-term shareholders. Few more buy-side perspectives and interviews are organised here.

I enjoyed listening to Ryan talk about investor relations. A few interesting perspectives from this conversation that could be worthwhile for us to consider:

1/ Building trust through original writing. Management teams writing candidly and "in their own voice" (what is going well, what the challenges are, where the business is headed) builds trust, which becomes a very valuable currency during moments of crisis that, over a long enough time span, surely come.

2/ Creating good, data-rich presentations (referencing statistician Edward Tufte’s “data-to-ink ratio”), with as much historical context as is available and possible. For instance, Coca-Cola’s financial statements in some databases go back to around 1920!!

3/ Providing another layer of company insight or activities that go beyond the quarterly cycle of press releases and earnings calls. This also reminded me of what another investor once said: “we are long-term students of the companies we invest in, and IR teams, through their activities, set the curriculum for us.” It seems that investors appreciate IR teams more as educators rather than sellers.

1/ Portfolio constraints silently dominate interest

A key point was about understanding fund constraints: geography, market cap, liquidity, and fund mandate. For seasoned investors, very few companies are truly “new.” Investment horizon matters as well; sovereign wealth funds, for example, typically have longer-term holding periods than most fund managers and no external clients.

IR implication: time is best spent on investors who can own the stock. IR teams should understand which investors are structurally constrained versus genuinely able to invest, and tailor outreach, expectations, and follow-ups accordingly.

2/ Idea generation is open, but inclusion is slow and collective

Within this defined universe, ideas can come from a variety of sources: conferences, reading, analysts. But moving from ticker to portfolio is often a multi-week or multi-month process involving analysts, PMs, and sometimes colleagues covering other sectors or regions.

IR implication: consistency matters more than first impressions. One good meeting rarely converts into an investment.

3/ Educating is one of the highest-value IR activities

Investors want to understand what a company actually does when the business or industry is complex, technical, or regulated.

IR implication: dedicate seperate sessions to investor education. Capital market days, factory deep dives, regulatory mechanics, and technology walkthroughs build long-term credibility far more than quarterly numbers.

4/ Crisis behaviour is the true IR differentiator

Periods of uncertainty or bad news are when investors pay the most attention to companies and their IR teams. Martin gave the example of Capitec in South Africa, which was hit by a short-seller report and a sharp share price fall. The company immediately reached out to its largest shareholders, organised direct calls with management and IR, addressed inaccuracies in detail, and clearly explained what was happening and why. Investors actually added to their positions, confidence was restored, and the stock recovered.

IR implication: investors get the clearest “taste” of IR quality during stress.

5/ Small and mid caps must focus on attention, not volume

Companies do not need massive budgets to reach investors, but do need a compelling story. Without one, more meetings simply amplify indifference.

IR implication: before spending resources on broad outreach, ask a hard question: what is genuinely special about our investment story?

6/ Knowing your buy-side audience

Buy-side analysts and portfolio managers come into meetings with different objectives. Analysts focus on detail and mechanics, whereas PMs focus on the big picture, risks, and conviction. This level of understanding often develops through pre-meeting dialogue.

IR implication: consider a two-deck approach: one simple, high-level deck for PMs, and a second, more detailed deck for analysts. This keeps meetings focused while serving both audiences properly.

—

I remember my first (and only) interview for a head of investor relations role. At the end of the final meeting, I asked the CFO what his expectations were. Without hesitation, he smiled and said, “Double the share price, of course — isn’t that the point of investor relations?”

It’s a line that stayed with me after the interview. I was twenty-five at the time and spent days wondering how I was meant to “double the share price”, and how little of that I could actually influence despite my best efforts.

Years later, I listened to a presentation by the IR officer of a large pharma company who explained how her team set goals. Every behaviour, conference attendance, investor calls, targeting, disclosure, presentation format, was planned meticulously in advance, executed, and reviewed in what seemed to be a continuous feedback loop. This internal DNA of continuous experimentation and improvement is one of the best arguments for having clear KPIs.

KPIs in investor relations are fundamentally about alignment with management and the board. They connect the day-to-day work of the IR team with the broader goals set by management, whether that’s expanding international ownership, improving valuation, strengthening liquidity, or deepening relationships with long-term shareholders. They also provide a map that shows where progress is being made and where attention is needed. Finally, they also bring accountability: they show whether resources such as time, budget, travel, and management attention are being spent effectively.

In practice, many IR teams operate without formal KPIs, and that’s understandable. Setting them is hard, largely because of several structural challenges. Key outcomes such as share price, sell-side coverage, or trading liquidity often depend on factors the IR team cannot control. Many aspects of performance, credibility, narrative clarity, and relationship quality, are qualitative and difficult to quantify. The time horizon adds another layer of complexity: changes in shareholder base quality or valuation re-rating can take years to materialise, yet most KPIs are set on an annual basis. Finally, reliable data on investor engagement, perception, or ownership is often fragmented, delayed, or incomplete, making consistent measurement even harder.

Still, the process of defining KPIs, even imperfect ones, forces focus, discipline, and internal discussions that otherwise might not have happened.

—

A Framework for Thinking About IR KPIs

I have recently surveyed company IR departments and found that KPIs in our field tend to fall into four broad categories: market engagement, shareholder base development, perception and communication, and internal effectiveness.

1. Market Engagement
These metrics measure how actively the IR team builds and expands investor engagement. Examples include:

Proactive KPIs (IR-driven effort)
• Number of investor meetings initiated directly by IR (vs broker-led).
• Conversion rate: percentage of targeted or met investors who became shareholders.
• Shareholder and peerholder outreach coverage (% of relevant universe engaged).

Reactive KPIs (market-driven engagement)
• Total number of investor meetings (by region, investor type, AUM tier).
• Ratio of new vs repeat investors.
• Number of inbound meeting requests.

Sell-side KPIs
• Number of active analysts and changes in recommendation or rating.
• Participation in broker conferences, NDRs, and virtual events.

2. Shareholder Base Development
These metrics assess how the shareholder base is evolving and whether IR efforts are influencing it. Examples include:

Structure and Composition
• Institutional vs retail ownership (% and trend).
• Active vs passive split.
• Top-20 shareholder concentration and diversification range.

Behaviour and Stability
• Shareholder turnover (% change quarter-to-quarter).
• Percentage of long-term holders (holding period >12 months).
• Volatility of top-holder positions (quarterly churn).
• Conversion or increased holdings among engaged investors.

Quality and Strategic Fit
• Peerholder representation.
• Alignment with the company’s strategic profile.
• Geographic and investor-type mix (HF, LO, Quant, etc.).

3. Perception and Communication
These metrics assess how well the IR team communicates and processes feedback from the market.

Market Understanding & Sentiment
“Is our investment case well understood?”
• Investor perception survey results — quantitative ratings and qualitative feedback.
• Sentiment trends over time (improving, stable, declining).

Communication Reach & Engagement
“How effectively do we communicate our story?”
• IR website performance: visitors, time per visit, downloads.
• Open and click-through rates from investor mailings.
• Engagement during earnings calls (questions, analyst participation, follow-ups).
• Topics discussed in meetings (changes QoQ, YoY).

4. Internal Effectiveness
These metrics measure how efficiently the IR function operates and creates value both internally and externally.

Internal (managing up)
• Timeliness and quality of internal reporting (management satisfaction score).
• Number of strategic recommendations delivered to management based on investor insight.
• Adherence to reporting timelines for board updates and roadshow summaries.

External
• Responsiveness: average time to reply to investor or analyst queries.
• Use of AI tools to improve productivity or insight quality.
• Timeliness of results publication and updates.

There are, of course, other KPIs that fall outside these main categories. I’ve come across several in surveys and conversations, such as how IR teams use AI, the pursuit of awards, or inclusion in key indices.

—

Some Parting Reflections

I recently had the opportunity to take part in a KPI panel with TUYID, where we explored how different companies approach this topic in practice. The discussion concluded with a few wise reminders:

• Focus on quality, not quantity. For instance, consider what matters isn’t how many analysts cover you, but how many actually publish thoughtful research.
• Start small. If there are no KPIs in place, begin with just a few meaningful measures (“less is more” mentality) that reflect your priorities. Build consistency first, then expand as you learn what really drives results.
• Let KPIs evolve. Markets, disclosure standards, and corporate priorities change over time. Refresh and adapt your metrics regularly to keep them relevant.
• Don’t forget to celebrate progress. Helin from Yapi Kredi reminded us that numbers are only one side of the story. Recognise achievements, both individual and collective, they sustain energy, pride, and motivation within the team.

Reference Presentation:

Setting KPIS for IR Teams. TUYID presentation, 6 November 2025

At the start of the month a headline caught my eye: ICE (owner of the New York Stock Exchange, one of the largest stock exchanges) announced a $2bn (!) strategic investment in Polymarket, the largest prediction market. It appears from the press release that ICE wants to own and sell the data signal (read that as live probability curve of real-world events) to the institutional market; banks, funds, corporates, campaigns, and anyone making policy or risk decisions. The news has certainly got a lot more people talking about prediction markets and how their evolution could shift things.

**

I remember a discussion a long time ago with a trader about how oil markets are the best predictor of the possibility of a war in the Middle East. He said that oil markets usually have a great way of pricing future geopolitical risk in the region, way ahead of media and journalists. I asked why “usually”. He said because oil prices have a lot of other dynamics going on for themselves that impact demand and supply, and it is impossible to completely isolate and get exposure to the event of a war breaking out and that oil was simply the best proxy.

**

I also remember, not too long ago, being part of an event where a fund advisor talked about the best way to get exposure to the market in the event of Trump winning the US election in November 2024. The discussion was about buying a bucket of assets today that would likely benefit if Trump won.

**

However, rather than indirectly getting exposure to an event, prediction markets isolate the event, and create what seems to look like a security whose price depends on the crowd’s view of the event taking place.

Here is an example:

As of today, on Polymarket, there seems to be an 8% chance that the stolen Louvre jewels will be recovered by 31 October and a 41% chance that they will be recovered by the end of the year.

In practice this means, say I have a good idea (say I am an detective in stolen jewels, did my research etc.) that the jewels will be returned by the end of the year - I can buy this contract for $0.42 and wait for the jewels to be found, and then I’ll get $1.00. Of course, the contract might trade up in the lead-up to the event and I can trade out of my contract, like a share, making a profit, or keep it until the end and get the full $1.00.

The current trading price of 42% is the crowd’s consensus view, the view of all the people who have an opinion and have backed it with a financial bet. And by buying a share of the prediction, you own a financial forecast which you might decide to hold until maturity or sell.

And you can also create your own market if you believe there would be enough interest (e.g. will OpenAI launch a piece of hardware by 2025). There are of course all sorts of market design issues to consider: regulation, liquidity, the clarity of the event definition, and whether enough people care to make the signal useful, but the ability to turn a belief into a tradeable forecast is an interesting innovaiton.

This is very different to equity markets, where you are buying an ownership stake in a company and your return depends on its long-term performance and many factors. In prediction markets you are simply trading the likelihood of a specific event, with no ownership or claim on any underlying assets. The goal is not to see through the value in a business, but to price information and expectations as accurately as possible.

It is also very different to traditional betting, where a bookmaker sets the odds and takes the opposite side of your wager. In a prediction market, prices emerge from open trading between participants, so you are betting against other traders and helping the market discover the most accurate probability of the outcome.

So why does this matter, and what is the practical value for companies if this continues to evolve?

Firstly, better forward guidance. Companies could use prediction markets to gather signals on whether investors and employees believe they will actually hit revenue guidance, launch timelines, regulatory approvals, etc. A real-time probability curve becomes a useful tool for management and strategy teams, as well as IR teams to take in feedback from the ‘market’ back to the board room. Perhaps an extreme version of this below, a market for ‘what will Meta say during its next earnings call?"‘

Secondly, better capital allocation and risk management. Instead of relying on external consultants, reserach, internal committees, companies can price the probability of key strategic outcomes even outside of their companies (a refinery opening on time by a competitor, a new product rollout, a clinical trial result) and adjust capital spend ahead based on this data. And risk management especially If liquidity deepens, institutions may hedge exposure through these markets. Imagine a utility or energy company hedging the probability of a nuclear plant approval or a carbon-tax decision.

Thirdly, this could evolve into a new investor-engagement channel, perhaps initially through retail investors. Letting investors back specific milestones and engage in that discussion could deepen loyalty and surface real opinion. It also gives IR teams a clearer way to distinguish between those who are simply trading around short-term noise (best suited for prediction markets) and those who genuinely believe in the company’s direction and want to be long-term partners in the story (best suited for equity markets)!

And finally, on the other side of the table, prediction-market prices could become a valuable signal for analysts and institutional investors. Traditional valuation tries to isolate the probability of specific catalysts; approvals, acquisitions, product launches, but it has always been an estimate buried inside a wider model. If prediction markets provide a clean, constantly updated probability curve for those catalysts, investors can refine positions faster and with more conviction. Suddenly truth about the future becomes its own asset class, and those who price it well gain an advantage.

Of course, this raises all sorts of questions and flags. What stops motivated groups from manipulating the price of certain outcomes? How will regulators categorise event-driven contracts, securities, commodities, or something new entirely? Will companies encourage trading around their milestones? As in other regulated markets, there will be a need for transparency, strong definitions, and guardrails that protect against perverse incentives.However, this is a space that I think will continue evolving, and it is worth paying attention to as it develops.

Equity markets tell you what a company is worth today. The evolving prediction markets are here to tell you what people truly believe will happen next. When we put those two signals side by side the capital formation starts to change shape, and investors can start to separate (and monitise!) short terms hype from long term conviction, companies gain faster feedback loops, and uncertainty becomes something you can price more dircetly. Prediction markets that “trade belief” may one day become just as important as those that trade ownership.

Point72 runs a multi-manager platform model, which effectively means there are dozens of independent teams running different strategies while risk management, reporting and compliance are centralised. The strategies also involve traditional stock-picking models across emerging markets, where we often come across this fund.

In his interview (transcript here), Harry mentioned a number of times that the investment professionals in his firm are long-term students of the companies they invest in:

We’ve built this model of really training investors to be students of the business, we’ve tried to give our investment professionals more time […] to obsess over what we know about the company, where they’re trying to go, and the industry. Focusing on getting the direction right over the next few years, rather than obsessing over the next quarter or the next tick.

Firstly, it is refreshing to hear a CIO of a prominent hedge fund publicly advocating such a long-term approach to investing: giving his portfolio managers ample time to study companies deeply, knowing the industry, supply chains, customers, competitors, and especially management quality.

Secondly, if portfolio managers act as long-term students, company investor relations teams can be a very valuable asset in this process by creating a “curriculum” of events for those investors.

In practice, this means combining various activities together, presented by different internal teams in the company, and grouping them together as a coherent programme for a captive audience.

I have seen many examples of this from companies, and the graphic below tries to show a few examples of company-organised events that could eventually form as a year-long curriculum.

I have also seen good examples of companies proactively pointing investors to credible outside industry resources, publications, or events where investors can learn more about the sectors they operate it. The idea is not to sell the story, just make the investor as comfortable and as knowledgable as possible.

In reality, it is a logistical challenge to organise so many events, and even more complicated to tailor the content for different “students,” each at a different stage of their learning journey.

However, with AI increasingly embedded into the workplace, it will become much easier to personalise each aspect of the investment case and address the specific needs of investors, drawing on what we know about them, their history of interactions with us, and previous lines of questioning.

One way to look at investor engagement is not as a calendar of isolated, siloed events, but as a continuous, adaptive curriculum, a journey that begins with the first call or introductory meeting and ending in an investor becoming a long-term shareholder in your business.

I know there are many others far more informed on the topic who share their views, and perhaps this is just a remix of what was already said, or a slight addition. None of these thoughts are fully cemented (and I reserve the right to update this list!), but some big-picture themes are starting to form:

1. Art of thinking for yourself (reasoning)
   
   There is a real risk of outsourcing your thinking almost entirely to AI. This is really just an extension of an existing trend: fast entertainment, streaming, social media, where people naturally prefer to be entertained rather than read books or engage deeply with topics. Now, even in the office, much of the day writing emails, creating presentations, researching ideas is increasingly done with AI. I’ve had friends tell me they spend their entire day on ChatGPT, and that they no longer trust themselves to write an email or reply to a boss or client without it. I think this creates two problems. First, and perhaps more philosophically, it strips away the fun part of life: making your own contribution, doing something yourself, puting your own personal mark on an accomplishment. If everything becomes so efficient and AI makes all the choices for you; how to dress, what to write, how to analyse a problem, life risks becoming sterile and boring. Where is the fun in receiving a ‘cheat code’ for every game you play? It also makes your brain lazy and stale, just like your muscles (“why run 10k, when we can just take the car?!”). Second, in a world where you rely on AI for thinking, you can be caught off guard and deceived more easily1, because you’re effectively following an agenda set by others. All your views and biases end up being aggregated by four or five large language models; a very short menu of options of thought to be followed by billions of people.
   
   Encouragingly, I’ve also seen some signs of a counter-trend: people creating their own personal learning curricula, immersing themselves in the classics, reading long form essays and books, or organising debate clubs to sharpen independent reasoning.
   

2. Art of providing real value (solving the real problems)
   
   The barriers to creating “things” will keep getting lower. We are clearly entering a golden age for entrepreneurs who always wanted to build but were held back by steep learning curves when entering new industries. Today it’s already far easier to code impressive software on your own or design a 3D model for a summer house by the lake. Knowledge is faster to access, and as a result you can now become very competent in not just one or two but a few different industries. But this explosion of supply of ‘things’ also creates a bubble of solutions disconnected from real problems. Just because it is easy to build something fast doesn’t mean it always matters. For entrepreneurs, the critical entry skill is empathy: putting yourself deeply in the shoes of your client and ‘simulating the world’ through their eyes. How exactly is your solution solving their problem? How much does the problem cost them? Who is paying the price now? Why are you or your company the best to solve it?
   
   From my experience so far, LLMs tend to generalise or, at best, skim over those questions and at worst, provide an oversimplified, over enthusiastic spin on things. The DNA of true entrepreneurship is being addicted to noticing pain points and helping people out, a skill that will be very hard to automate in our lifetime at such an individualistic, 8.1 billion people, level. Value doesn’t come from making more, but from solving what actually hurts.
   

3. Art of storytelling (persuasion, selling)
   
   Having a differentiated product or a competitive price alone might no longer be enough to succeed. I think storytelling and persuasion skills will be much more valuable, a compliment to build a client base, communicate the value of your product, and genuinely position yourself as the best person or company to solve a problem. I think more will be studied and written about brands, whether companies or individuals, that can differentiate themselves through by articulating a compelling story (involving personal credibility, track record, emotion) about who they are and what they stand for.

   
   We will always need good storytellers… It’s how you raise money, how you find a partner, how you land a job, how you convince people to work with you. Good stories tap into emotions and feelings, something so human that no algorithm, however advanced, can authentically be able to replicate.
   

4. Art of bringing people together
   
   This might sound like an outlier, but there’s a tendency with AI to lock you into your own world. Surrounded by assistants and chatbots all day that provide comfort and guidance in all sorts of situations, it becomes easy to grow self-focused. But this runs against our nature. Humans are deeply social animals; we crave interaction, debate, and personal connection. History shows how powerful this can be in business. I recently read a story of how, in the 17th century, London overtook Amsterdam to become the world’s financial capital. The reason wasn’t just stronger institutions or better trade, it was the culture of London’s coffeehouses and pubs. Importantly, these were spaces where people stood rather than sat, mingled freely, and exchanged ideas with strangers. That constant flow of conversation and debate helped develop institutions that can still be found around the perimeter of the City of London. People who can create environments that bring people together were always valued in the past, and I think this will continue to be the case for many years to come.

   

   This is, of course, only a partial list, and it doesn’t capture all the new skills that will emerge as industries evolve. Still, it feels to me like a useful starting point—sketched out in an hour this morning with a blank page and a strong cup of coffee. And interestingly, even in developing these deeply human skills, AI can can help, but it’s still up to us to figure out percisely how.

Newton at the time was led by Helena Morrissey, a charismatic CEO, an advocate for women in finance, and notably a mother of nine children! She was a great ambassador for Newton in the City of London and even though Newton was smaller in size than many of its neighbours, it had a strong image and reputation — in part thanks to Helena.

One of the key things you always associated with Newton at the time was their ‘thematic approach’ to investing. A thematic approach involves setting up a few big global themes and then picking great companies that fit within those themes.

I found that very interesting. So rather than being constrained to a region or a sector (as most investment strategies are), Newton had no such limits. They picked interesting companies from around the world that aligned with their themes — companies that would benefit as those themes played out.

Newton’s presentations in the City were all about these themes, and their analysts were real subject matter experts — sometimes even bringing in scientists or industry heavyweights to be part of the research behind them. The themes were long-term by nature, which meant they attracted a different type of investor — not someone looking to make a quick return, but someone who believed in a much longer time horizon and was willing to see the story unfold.

I was able to dig out a piece from 2013. At that time, their themes included things like ‘Chinese influence’, ‘State Intervention’, and ‘Population Dynamics’.

For whatever reason, 15 years on, Newton’s thematic strategies have become more diffused in their offering and are no longer front and centre the way they used to be. I can see how it might be difficult to keep the end investors satisfied if the themes keep shifting, or to maintain a long investment horizon in a world that demands short-term performance. Perhaps the active thematic approach is better suited to family offices or retail investors. Or maybe it works better in an ETF format — after all, BlackRock has built an impressive and ever-growing list of ETFs that each follow a theme.

Inspired by some of the DNA from Newton, I tried to think what the themes of today might be that will likely play out over the next 10–15 years. What will the world look like? Who knows even roughly, but if I were to imagine a few ideas came to mind quickly:

1. Robotics - Over the last two decades, we’ve made big leaps in the digital world — software, IT, and now AI. But I think the next leap will be in hardware, specifically robotics. Machines will handle more physical work for us — driving, cleaning, cooking, and beyond. A whole new industry of companies, components, and use cases will emerge. That would be my first theme.

2. New Money - The second theme is closer to my comfort zone — fintech — which I think could be nicely subtitled as ‘innovation in value’. I expect that in ten years, how we save, spend, send money will look very different from today. The same goes for how and where we invest. This was actually one of Newton’s original themes, although it went through many iterations. One reason is that if you rely only on public markets, it’s hard to find pure investment opportunities. I think I will have to dig deeper into the private markets to find meaningful ideas for this theme.

3. Mixed Reality - The third theme is about the blurring lines between the physical and the digital. It’s fascinating to see sports simulators, games, and virtual worlds becoming more realistic. We’re starting to merge entertainment, learning, and even work into these immersive environments. Mixed reality — combining virtual and real spaces — feels like a major frontier. This shift will change how we work out, how we play, and even how we collaborate professionally. Fitness will increasingly be guided by gamified, immersive experiences. Gaming itself is evolving from a niche hobby to one of the dominant cultural and economic forces of our time, with entire virtual ecosystems forming around it. The way we ‘experience reality’ is going to probably look very different.

4. Next-Gen Energy - my fourth theme — and the one I’d probably need to hire an analyst for :) — is energy. We all know the world will have to move away from carbon, sooner or later. That means solar, nuclear, batteries, new grid systems. There’s political pressure, climate urgency, and technological momentum all pointing in the same direction. It’s a hard sector, but it feels inevitable.

Of course, there are plenty of other themes I’m surely missing here — commerce, AI infrastructure, healthcare, macroeconomics, security, ageing populations, food innovation — and that’s kind of the point. From a personal investing perspective, you can only really focus on a few themes you’re curious about and want to keep learning about. And the rest can be left for others to research!

If it were to happen, what would it look like?

Depositary Receipts 2.0

The idea of tokenising equity in the broadest sense is not entirely new—it goes all the way back to 1920. At that time, if you were a U.S. investor and wanted to trade stocks in the UK, you had to trade directly on the London Stock Exchange. This was difficult for American investors; different regulations, settlement procedures, and currency risks made it challenging to own stocks directly.

To solve this, JP Morgan and Bank of New York worked together to develop a mechanism allowing U.S. investors to buy shares of UK stocks. This system was called depositary receipts (DRs) —a bank would hold ordinary shares in London and issue a receipt in the U.S. representing those shares, allowing investors to trade this receipt on a U.S. exchange in U.S. dollars.

The London department store Selfridges was the first to issue Depositary Receipts in 1920. A Selfridges receipt behaved like a U.S. stock, trading alongside other US names such as General Motors, Chrysler, and Bethlehem Steel.

Fast forward to today, the challenges that existed 100 years ago to invest locally still to some extent exist today. As a result, the DR business has grown significantly over the past 100 years, with over a trillion dollars in assets now held in depositary receipt form by thousands of issuers. This has provided investors with easier access to global equities, including those in emerging markets. The DR product was particularly valuable there —not only was accessing an emerging market exchange tricky, but the local infrastructure often wasn’t ready to handle large IPOs.

DRs created a wrapper that made it easier for investors to hold shares of foreign companies in a way that resembled U.S. equities. They retained all the traditional features of their home markets—regulatory compliance, trading, settlement—while giving investors the stamp of approval and comfort they sought.

What is a tokenised equity?

A tokenised equity is fundamentally different, but in some ways, it is very similar to a depositary receipt— acting as a ‘wrapper’ of an underlying asset and making investment access broader and more efficient.

At its very core, tokenisation upgrades the traditional ownership record system. In today’s capital markets, buying and selling shares requires a complex web of intermediaries—brokers, clearinghouses, custodians, transfer agents, and settlement systems—all working to ensure that ownership is correctly recorded and transferred from one investor to the other, in a trustful way, preventing fraud and ensuring transactions are valid. This system was refined over decades and for better or worse, it works: trillions of dollars of transactions are being processed by this system each day.

With blockchain, this trust mechanism provides the trust but is automated. Instead of relying on multiple third parties, ownership is recorded and transferred via an online ledger and contracts, which are programmed and execute transactions transparently and securely. The blockchain itself acts as a source of truth, using cryptographic validation and consensus mechanisms to ensure every transaction is legitimate—without the need for intermediaries.

This shift brings two major benefits: lower costs and a better user experience.

Cost savings come from the fact that tokenisation eliminates many intermediaries involved in traditional markets, reducing fees for issuance, trading, and settlement. Transactions also benefit from instant settlement, clearing in seconds rather than days, which minimises counterparty risk and delays.

For investors, this could mean that stocks could be traded 24/7 and, in theory, be accessible to anyone with an internet connection—offering an experience similar to shopping online1. Once I own a share, I could import it into any ‘wallet’, an advisor’s interface, or an analytics platform. This opens the door for a wave of new apps that help manage, track, and analyse portfolios. In a way, it untethers your asset from a single broker or custodian, giving you much more control and flexibility.

For companies, this unlocks a major benefit: access to a much broader pool of potential investors, with significantly lower barriers to entry. Instead of being limited to institutional investors or retail traders in a specific country, companies could tap into a global audience—anyone with a smartphone and a wallet. Investors wouldn’t need to go through the traditional hoops of setting up brokerage accounts, converting currencies, or navigating local investment regulations. It also opens the door to new forms of investor interaction, loyalty programs, or even governance participation—all enabled through programmable securities.

There’s also potential for improvements in secondary market trading. Liquidity is a long-standing challenge for small- and mid-cap companies, with many struggling to attract enough daily trading volume to meet institutional requirements. While it’s still very early days, blockchain infrastructure could enable innovative mechanisms like automated market makers (AMMs) or continuous trading pools, which may offer new ways to improve liquidity and market efficiency for traditionally overlooked issuers.

The road ahead

Despite its promise, there are major hurdles ahead.

The first one on the list is regulatory. Today there is a lack of clear regulatory frameworks for tokenised securities that would enable this model to work on a global scale, especially within the public equity space. Traditional equities are subject to strict local securities laws, including listing requirements, disclosure rules, and investor protections. In contrast, tokenised equities today exist in a sort of a legal grey area—they can be classified as securities in one jurisdiction but as unregulated digital assets in another.

In essence, equity markets operate under local laws, while blockchain lends itself (or excels) in a global, borderless infrastructure—creating a mismatch between how assets are regulated and how this technology is designed to function. Until this gap is closed, the full potential will remain largely untapped.

Secondly, there are heavy product issues that need to be addressed. Will tokenised stocks be fully fungible (like DRs) with their ordinary shares traded on stock exchanges, allowing holders to redeem digital tokens for actual shares, or will they exist as separate financial instruments? How will voting rights be handled? Dividends and corporate actions also introduce all sorts of logistical hurdles—would tokenised stocks automatically distribute dividends, and how would companies manage stock splits, rights offerings, or mergers in a blockchain-based system? What about investor protection, custody arrangements, asset verification (relationship between the digital token and underlying equity), the list goes on…

Parting thoughts

My optimistic self believes tokenised securities will happen—it's just a matter of time. If history is any guide, tokenised securities will continue to evolve and coexist with traditional markets, as the regulatory and product-related questions I raised above are gradually addressed. I know people working on ambitious projects today that tackle these challenges.

For investor relations teams, this is an exciting space to watch and take part in —and potentially a major opportunity for company management teams in the near future.

First and foremost, I think any discussion on 'trends in IR' should start with the broader trends affecting listed companies’ primary audience: institutional investors. For emerging markets, where we spend most of time in, this includes dynamics unique to these regions. Beyond this, I thought it might be useful to touch on “bigger picture” technological trends—AI, blockchain, and the development of the web. While many of these may seem like buzzwords today, I believe the applications that they will bring about will, over time, change the landscape of the capital markets.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of developments in our industry. I have deliberately chosen not to cover topics such as reporting, governance, ESG and CSRD, MiFID II, and other areas that I know form a significant part of many people’s work lives! I’ve chosen to define trends broadly, focusing on areas that will shape investor relations as we enter 2025!

There is a lot to cover, so let's get started!

The Investment Universe

The addressable universe of investors can be thought of a two sided pyramids: one part representing active funds (managed by professionals who meet companies) and the other representing passive funds (which simply track market indices in a low cost way). In reality, there is also a bit of overlap between these categories. For instance, some institutions like Norges Bank, while being active investors, often behave passively due to their sheer size. Similarly, some firms like BlackRock operate in both active and passive spaces.

Emre Akcakmak from East Capital, who presented after me, highlighted a few dynamics in Turkey that also resonate across other markets, particularly in Eastern Europe: the decline of regional funds, such as those focusing on Eastern Europe—exacerbated by Russia’s exit from the MSCI EM index—and the rise of local institutions supported by private pension systems. Additionally, much of institutional investor behaviour, including inflows, is influenced by factors outside a company’s immediate control, such as its weighting in the MSCI EM index. Furthermore, even if a company falls within an investor’s universe, liquidity and market cap restrictions (many EM funds adhere to thresholds like a $1 billion market cap and $1 million daily trading volume) often prevent engagement. It’s no surprise, then, that a recurring theme at IR conferences is how to be more proactive and go deeper to reach incremental investors.

On the other hand, there has been significant activity in the world of exchange-traded funds. Many of us think of ETFs as simple index trackers, but a quick look at iShares’ directory reveals a much broader scope. There are actively managed ETFs (where fund managers aim to outperform benchmarks), thematic funds, and funds designed to provide access to niche areas of the market. Private market ETFs, though nascent, are beginning to emerge. ETFs cater to both retail and institutional investors, and the core debate vis-a-vis active funds continue to revolve around fees and performance. For example, an actively managed EM fund from Abrdn Asset Management costs over 1% per year in fees, while an EM passive fund from iShares costs only about 0.1%. Research shows that, on the whole, active fund managers struggle to outperform index trackers, which often achieve better results due to lower costs. Therefore, it's unsurprising that ETFs make up over half of trading volumes in many markets.

There’s an idea that revolves around proactively engaging the entire addressable investment universe, which management and IR teams could incorporate into their 2025 plans.

1. Addressing Active Funds: Companies can take on the role of their own "head of equity sales" by organising targeted, company-led events, such as roadshows, webinars, or dedicated investor days. These initiatives proactively complement traditional, reactive methods like broker conferences, and incoming calls. By actively engaging with the active investment audience, companies, over time, own the relationship with the buy-side and reach a broader pool of potential investors.

2. Addressing Passive Funds: A useful exercise, at least at the outset, would be to understand the investment methodologies and inclusion criteria of various indices a company could potentially join. This may involve analysing the rules and benchmarks used by index providers—many of which now consider factors beyond simple market-cap weighting—and exploring how the company’s profile aligns (or not) with these criteria. An interesting question to ask is "What sort of a company should I be to benefit more from passive funds"?

3. Tailoring the Message to Different Investors: Engaging with the addressable universe also requires tailoring the message to suit different types of investors. The approach or service provided to a new fund the company has never interacted with would differ from that offered to an existing shareholder. Similarly, the messaging should be customised to meet the priorities of a growth-focused fund versus one that prioritizes dividend yield. There are many creative ways to think about this, and AI tools will make it easier to execute such tailored engagement strategies efficiently.

AI

It has been over a year since generative AI took centre stage. While I haven’t been closely following all developments, I’ve noticed several key trends emerging:

• New Model types : Generative AI is evolving beyond simple text-based interactions. New models (such as 'agentic' or 'multimodal') can not only respond to text prompts but also perceive and interact with their environments. For example, models are being developed that can see, hear, and even sense physical surroundings, paving the way for more immersive AI applications. Google’s DeepMind recently has showcased multimodal models capable of understanding visual and audio inputs simultaneously, such as identifying objects in images while responding to spoken instructions.

• Hardware and Infrastructure: A significant portion of investment in this space today is focused on the infrastructure layer. Companies are racing to develop the hardware and cloud infrastructure necessary to support advanced AI capabilities. Nebius, among others, is building robust cloud solutions to optimise AI training and deployment. Instead of buying an NVIDIA’s GPUs remain critical for accelerating AI workloads.

• Open Source vs Closed Source Debate: The AI community is divided on whether the methodologies and datasets used to train AI models should be open to all or remain proprietary. Open-source advocates argue that transparency fosters innovation and democratisation, while proponents of closed-source models emphasise security, intellectual property, and commercial viability. For example, OpenAI’s decision to release GPT-3 in a limited way contrasted with Stability AI’s open release of Stable Diffusion has fuelled this debate.

• Ethics and Regulation: As generative AI becomes more pervasive, questions around ethics and regulation are gaining prominence. Governments and organisations are grappling with how to ensure responsible AI development while preventing misuse. As you would expect (!), EU is leading the way in this seeking to establish a regulatory framework to address these concerns, while companies like Anthropic are designing models with “Constitutional AI” principles for ethical guardrails.

The obvious observation is that as these developments unfold, organisations will increasingly adopt these tools top down and integrate them into their workflows. For those of us in IR, these changes present opportunities for greater efficiency and doing a lot more with data. We’ve observed a growing number of companies fine-tuning language models and enhancing them with their own datasets. We’ve also been innovating in this space, and last year we launched CAI, a solution that leverages data from our platform while integrating it with internal sources for a more comprehensive approach.

Blockchain

While mainstream focuses on bitcoin prices, lawsuits, meme coins etc, quietly there is something happening beneath the surface— backbone plumbing for new financial system is being built. At its core, blockchain is as a verification mechanism for transferring value. Unlike traditional systems that rely on centralised institutions as intermediaries, blockchain enables value to move seamlessly and securely across borders without intermediaries. This decentralisation makes sending "value" as easy as sending an email with a photo.

1. Tokenised securities and stablecoins: One of the most relevant to us applications of blockchain is in tokenised securities, particularly debt or private credit instruments. By embedding various terms and conditions into smart contracts, these digital tokens can automate compliance, payments, and other processes, reducing costs and increasing transparency. Stablecoins—blockchain-based digital currencies pegged to stable assets like fiat currencies—are also becoming a crucial component of this ecosystem. They serve as a practical bridge between traditional finance and decentralised systems, streamlining cross-border payments, enabling faster settlements, and reducing transaction costs. Initially, we are likely to gain traction among smaller companies— ie the "left side of the adoption curve"—seeking efficient alternatives to traditional capital-raising methods.

2. (But actually...) anything that has value can be transported on these digital rails, almost instantaneously and at almost no cost. Things such as loyalty points, in-game currencies, carbon credits could be tokenised, traded, and utilised in novel ways. This provides companies with all sorts of creative tools to engage their customers and build loyalty and for investors, new asset classes to invest in.

3. Regulatory clarity: lack of regulations has kept DeFi largely on the fringes of the financial system. However, regulations under the Trump administration are likely to address this by establishing rules and frameworks to ensure that solutions entrepreneurs build using this technology are legally recognised.

As this ecosystem evolves in 2025, listed companies will be introduced to more creative tools to engage with their customers and retail investors, while smaller companies gain new, accessible methods to raise capital on-chain.

The ‘3D Web’

I intentionally avoided using the term “metaverse" due to its negative connotations and widespread misconceptions. However, the high-level concept remains: the future of the internet is unlikely to be confined to flat, 2D websites. Instead, we are moving towards a more immersive, three-dimensional digital worlds that blend with the real world, eventually creating an interconnected, layered experience.

I recognise that this is a simplified perspective, and it may take another five years—or more—before we can seriously consider the 3D web as anywhere near reality.

For IR teams, the 3D web will provide a completely new toolkit to engage with investors and tell their company’s story. Traditional formats like presentations and 2D websites will no longer be the main way to tell your story. Imagine instead offering investors an immersive virtual experience where they can explore your company’s operations, interact with key data, meet management in impactful and memorable ways. For example, an oil company could create an immersive experience allowing investors to explore their drilling operations virtually, bringing complex operations to life.

From my conversations with companies, the opportunity to use technology and stand out to investors and differentiate yourself from thousands of companies is appealing. Early adopters will have the advantage of shaping how this new medium is used while setting themselves apart as forward-thinking leaders!

A Quick Refresher

At its core, blockchain technology is a verification mechanism that allows us to reach consensus without relying on a centralised authority. This consensus is useful for confirming ownership. For instance, if I own 10 of something and you have 0, and I send you 5, the blockchain ledger updates accordingly—showing you have 5 and I have 5. The "thing" on the ledger can be any asset brought into this digital framework.

If this concept feels abstract, think of it like the online versus offline world. Online, you can send things (emails, photos, messages) almost instantly. Offline, you rely on systems like the post office for physical transfers. Blockchain does for value what the internet did for data—allowing you to send assets securely and instantly, with ownership tracked transparently on a ledger with a bank, broker, dealer, agent in the middle.

In the case of stablecoins, the "thing" tracked is typically dollars. Unlike Bitcoin, whose value fluctuates relative to the dollar1, stablecoins are pegged to a fixed value—usually $1 USD. Stablecoins are centralised, meaning a company outhere ensures that each coin is backed by real dollars or equivalent assets. You can think of it as a synthetic dollar or a digital receipt representing one dollar, but transferable via blockchain, with built-in verification.

Stablecoins are about Movement of Money

What makes stablecoins exciting is how they facilitate the movement of money. Let’s take a basic example: sending $100 from one country to another. Comparing traditional banks to blockchain, four key processes emerge:

1. Compliance with Regulation:
   Banks comply with regulations, performing identity checks (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) procedures. Blockchain networks don’t inherently support these checks, creating friction with regulators. However, frameworks like Europe’s MiCA are beginning to provide regulatory clarity.
   

2. Verification:
   In traditional banking, intermediaries (using systems like SWIFT or WIRE—the most expensive instant messaging service!) verify transactions, ensuring you have the $100 you intend to send. Blockchain performs this verification directly, eliminating intermediaries.
   

3. Actual Movement of Money (Speed and Cost):
   Transfers via traditional banks often involve central banks or settlement systems like CHIPS (U.S.) or TARGET2 (EU). Where direct relationships don’t exist, intermediary banks facilitate transactions—adding time and cost. Blockchain simplifies this, transferring value in minutes.
   

4. User Experience:
   While traditional finance offers underwhelming user experiences (see below!), it’s still ahead of blockchain, which requires to some extent technical know-how (setting up wallets, accounts with exchanges etc). Blockchain’s UX layer however is improving and depends on entrepreneurs to work out. Tools like Bridge (recently acquired by Stripe) making things easier, by integrating regulatory compliance (KYC/AML) into user-facing applications, making on and off-boarding between crypto and fiat currencies easier.
   

In short, blockchain eliminates intermediaries in steps 2 and 3, providing nearly free verification, rapid money transfers, and a transparent, open ledger of activity. Networks are continuously evolving—'Layer 2' chains, for instance, are enabling even faster and more cost-efficient transactions. The DeFi ecosystem, a parallel banking universe where many traditional banking functions such as loans and leverage can be performed, relies heavily on stablecoins and depends on these Layer 2 chains as essential enablers for cheap and fast money transfers.

Capital Market Applications

A timlely question to ask is this: with a frictionless, regulator-approved, and cost-free way to send any amount of money to anyone, what are the potential applications for stablecoins in capital markets ?

Stablecoins excel in scenarios requiring frequent, small, cross-border transactions. For example, the Micro Connect model allows small businesses in China to borrow and repay daily percentages of their revenues. A decentralised version of this could spread the risk, enabling businesses to borrow from and repay thousands of investors daily. DeFi could package these loans into index instruments, making them investable assets.

In this model, founders could borrow from investors worldwide and repay frequently (e.g., daily). Alternatively, they could raise equity capital via tokenized shares or debt, which could also benefit from secondary market trading on exchanges or liquidity pools.

Corporate actions could also be nicely streamlined. Companies could use stablecoins to pay dividends directly to shareholders globally, eliminating intermediaries, reducing settlement times, and saving costs. This is particularly advantageous in cross-border scenarios, where traditional systems introduce delays and fees.

For this to happen, the application layer needs to be developed and adopted where the pain points are the most significant. Alternatively, what new applications could be built that we haven’t yet been imagined?

The true potential is enormous. This is because the ‘global capital markets’ are not truly global—they face barriers, inefficiencies, and access restrictions. Stablecoins provide the foundational infrastructure and a new toolkit for companies to address these challenges. While it’s still early days, stablecoins have the power to be a key piece of the puzzle in this system upgrade.

I remember attending GITEX when I was 15 years old, witnessing the debut of the first black-and-white laser printers. Back then, it was held under a big tent next to the World Trade Centre, and the entrance fee was Dhs 25 (about 8 USD).

I had no real agenda for the day apart from just going with the flow and seeing what’s on. I naturally gravitate towards anything relating to fintech, but I knew this was not that type of event. The floor plan was laid out to cover a few ‘big themes,’ such as AI, Gaming, GSM, Cloud, IoT, Digital Cities, and so on.

As I strolled through the booths, I came to the realisation that the whole trade show felt like an AI showcase of sorts and that technological innovation, at least according to GITEX, has now become synonymous with AI innovation. It was hard to find an established exhibitor that didn’t showcase their ‘AI offerings’ front and centre; hardware, chatbots, assistants, language models in different languages, and all sorts of derivative applications were on display.

How does is AI applicable to the investment industry? I did have some prior views on and ideas of how AI would affect capital markets (both on the buy and sell sides), and seeing some of this on display validated some of my assumptions to some extent.

Large institutional investors have been crunching massive amounts of data for decades, consistently investing in technology, including machine learning, to improve data quality, processing speed, and trading operations. Michael Lewis’ book Flash Boys gave us a glimpse into this world a decade ago, showing how high-frequency traders used cutting-edge tech to gain microsecond advantages in the market. Automating the analysis of financial reports, news, extracting insights, sentiment, identifying patterns and anomalies, detecting shifts in public sentiment (after all, you make money not by being right about the company, but by being right about what others think about the company!) has been around for a long time. But they were expensive, inefficient, and accessible only to the largest institutions.

The difference with generative AI (a much more intelligent technology that comes up with data and smart workflows based on training) is that it levels the playing field somewhat, allowing smaller, less-resourced startups or boutique fund managers (or even sophisticated retail investors) to compete more effectively with larger firms by giving them more compute power. Just as an amateur software developer can now write, check, and debug more code than ever before—delivering higher-quality software faster and at a lower cost—AI tools enable active fund managers to vastly expand their analytical capabilities. By processing vast amounts of data points, research, identifying patterns, and automating routine tasks, fund managers are freed up to focus on what truly matters: developing high-conviction investment ideas backed by good data.

So, in a world where AI tools enables thousands of investors to process, crunch and analyse the same vast amounts of information, the value of personal connections and unique insights will only grow. Therefore, direct engagement with companies—insights from conversations that algorithms can't replicate—will become even more essential for gaining ‘an edge.’ In other words, with data and data analysis increasingly commoditised and accessible, the human element of understanding a company will be more sought after than ever.

Beyond AI, a few other things caught my eye at GITEX. I bumped into a South Korean delegation and spoke to a few companies there: one developing an optical glass headset with an on-off digital canvas switch; another creating a 3D virtual world where you walk with your digital self through an easily customisable environment. A third company, Deepbrain, was developing virtual avatars that looked remarkably realistic. I could easily replicate a digital version of myself, teach it what to say and how, and use it to present the weather forecast with an English accent on BBC News…

My high-level, and somewhat raw, view here is that we’ll see a continued convergence of the virtual and real worlds, first through augmented reality (AR) or a physical world overlay experienced through hardware that people will want to use. Practically, you could be visiting the Louvre, and instead of putting on a clunky headset, you'd have an on/off toggle on glasses, contact lenses, or whatever, to see a small virtual tour guide, who looks and feels like a real person, walk you through the exhibits. Your digital real estate would shift from being on a phone screen to being directly in your eyes—and it’s easy to see why companies like Meta and Apple are investing billions in research in this space. This shift would change how brands engage with customers, creating new digital real estate on top of the real one. And of course, it’s easy to extrapolate and visualise applications in other industries, for example, education. Imagine a history lesson watching an actual re-enactment of a gladiator fight in Rome’s Colosseum with a digital twin of Julius Caesar as your host.

Augmented reality, by nature a ‘mobile’ experience, will coexist with a ‘sedentary’ virtual (so called VR) world which has become increasingly synonymous with ‘metaverse’ . Many people get turned off when they hear the word metaverse, but I just think of it as a 3D version of the browser. From that perspective, we’re already there. If you’ve played the recent MS Flight Simulator, cycled indoors with BKOOL, or played golf in a Trackman environment, you’ll know how good the immersive 3D virtual worlds have become. In fact, they’re so good that sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between the real and the virtual.

The challenges to make this happen at scale are largely technical, but many analysts look at this space with the view that it will get there within a 10-year horizon. The opportunity then will be for companies to find creative and intelligent ways to be present and interact with their customers and investors in the ‘simulator experience internet.’ Until then, new paradigm in web seems to be ‘AI + mobile’.

Before I left, I stopped by the smart city pavilion, which was dominated by governments showcasing innovation in digital identity, healthcare, and city management. The big questions being addressed by the smart city folk are worthy ones in which we all in a way have skin in the game: how can our cities and urban areas become more attractive and liveable? How do you build (or improve) a city to maximise the well-being of its citizens? Many cities that have the luxury to start from scratch (e.g. NEOM) experiment heavily (e.g. GITEX host city Dubai), others do it more modestly but consistently (e.g. London), and some almost none at all (e.g. Milan, the city where I studied 20 years ago looks almost identical now to how it was then).

Even though GITEX often gets bad press locally for being a ‘hype fest,’ with people complaining it’s too crowded, I think the atmosphere was one of optimism, that the future is envisaged to look better than the present. And if nothing else, having a festival to celebrate this sort of mindset is a good enough excuse to throw a tech trade show!

When it comes to investor outreach, most publicly listed companies operate under a ‘reactive model,’ relying primarily on banks for investor introductions. This approach often becomes ingrained early in a company’s journey as a listed entity, starting with the IPO roadshow and continuing through broker-organised events and conferences.

As a result, many companies believe they are meeting investor demand by attending broker events and responding to incoming inquiries. To some extent, they are right—the universe of listed companies is well-defined, and any investor interested in, say, South African banks can easily identify a company by running a screener on Bloomberg and reaching out via the IR website.

Yet, there are compelling reasons to add a proactive component to your IR strategy. Relying solely on third parties limits access to only a portion1 of the addressable investor universe, often leaving untapped opportunities on the table.

For example, while investors in the “green part” of a pie chart can easily engage with a company by reaching out, they might not have done so yet. Some companies are finding success by reaching out to these potential investors directly2, increasing visibility through proactive engagement. This concept—equity sales for meetings, as brokers originally coined it—has gradually made its way into the IR world.

While the concept of company-initiated and organised roadshows is a novel one, many companies are starting to see the value in ensuring their investor coverage is as comprehensive as possible, while adopting a data-driven approach to confirm this. They can then sleep well at night knowing that no stone has been left unturned, that every investor with a mandate to invest in their company has either been met (via brokers or by directly), or at least has received an invitation to do so. This includes maintaining a dialogue with existing shareholders, but also proactively reaching out to institutional investors who are not yet shareholders but have the potential to become one.

Defining Investor Targeting

Investor targeting involves mapping out specific investors (or groups of investors) a company aims to engage. There are three noteworthy segments:

1. Existing shareholders – Both active and passive shareholders that are part of your shareholder register3.

2. Non-holders (potential shareholders) where you have a relationship – Institutional investors that are not part of your shareholder base but with whom you already have a relationship.

3. Non-holders with the mandate to invest in the company, but with whom you have no relationship yet.

When we talk about proactive investor targeting, we are typically focused on the last group.

Investor Types & Mandates

At a high level, public market investors can be grouped by whether they manage active or passive funds. While passive funds (like BlackRock’s iShares family of ETFs) generally don’t engage with IR teams, active funds—ranging from mutual funds to sovereign wealth funds—may be highly involved. Each investor group follows distinct mandates, which may dictate investments based on geographic regions, sectors, or themes, such as technology or demographic trends.

Several companies also find value in categorising these mandates and investor types within a visual framework. For instance, one approach might involve graphing them on a matrix, showing how different fund mandates align with specific investment themes.

Creating the short list: exclude and filter

A common approach for developing a shortlist from a long list of investors involves a mix of exclusions and filtering. Successful strategies often start by excluding investors who are unable to invest due to mandate restrictions. For example, a Brazil-focused fund will not have the flexibility to invest in an Egyptian company. After exclusions, applying additional criteria—like liquidity and market cap—helps further refine the list.

Companies may also explore methods like peer analysis, where they identify shareholders of similar companies and compare them to their own base. Another method is fundamental analysis, which reverse-engineers a fund’s investment strategy by examining portfolio metrics, such as P/E ratios or dividend yields, to find alignment with the company’s fundamentals.

Adding a CRM overlay to track past engagement can add another layer of insight. For some companies, these targeted lists are most effective when kept concise, perhaps around 100 names, which can then be expanded over time.

Outreach and marketing

Once the targeting is complete, companies can benefit from crafting a customised outreach plan. Many organisations structure their outreach around the quarterly earnings cycle, often adding company-organised roadshows. However, this outreach process isn’t always straightforward. An average institutional investor may have an addressable universe of thousands of stocks but only actively manage a few dozen.

Larger institutions often have teams that divide up sectors and regions, but the challenge remains: there is a small window to capture an investor's attention. Any given investment case is competing for attention with thousands of companies worldwide, making it impossible for investors to meet with every potentially interesting company. From our experience, several key practices can increase the likelihood of successful investor outreach:

• It may seems like a basic point, but ensuring that the IR website is up-to-date—with a strong investor presentation, financials, and an IR calendar accessible within two clicks—goes a long way to build trust. When investment managers look up your ticker and land on your IR page, this will often be their first point of contact with the company. The quality of the IR website communicates the strength of the potential connection between the company and their upcoming research process, setting the tone for further engagement.

• It’s worth taking the time to craft an elevator pitch and identify three to five key points that would attract a new investor to meet with you or management team. What makes your investment case stand out? Many companies include a few bullet points that go beyond the basic fundamentals, emphasising elements of your company’s unique story or growth prospects. Some companies even create multiple versions of their investment case elevator pitch. For instance, if the company pays high dividends, it would talk up this aspect when approaching dividend-focused investors.

• Large investment firms often have hundreds of team members, with dozens working on a single fund. There are significant differences in roles—from analysts to portfolio managers—so it pays to research who is responsible for what and send the meeting invitation to the right person. Additionally, in the post-MiFID II world, many institutional investors have specialised teams dedicated to handling corporate access invitations and investment research from the sell-side.

• Lastly, it’s a good idea to keep track of any feedback received during outreach—whether it’s a reason for lack of interest, availability conflicts, or other responses. This information, while not always consistently provided, can be invaluable for refining future outreach efforts. Ideally, investor targeting and outreach is an ongoing process, not a one-time event, and each interaction can offer insights that improve the effectiveness of the next round of engagement.

Putting it All Together

Proactive investor outreach is ultimately about ensuring that a company’s story reaches the right audience. Many companies are finding that by taking a direct approach, they not only broaden their investor base but also deepen relationships with investors genuinely aligned with their vision. Building a structured, data-driven outreach strategy allows these companies to feel confident that they’ve reached as wide an audience as possible, cultivating connections with those who recognise and believe in the company’s potential.

During our conversation, Mustafa shared a few perhaps subtle specifics on the importance of effective investor relations practices in his process, especially in emerging markets.

While many of these may be obvious to seasoned IR teams, they can nevertheless still serve as a timely reminder for the rest of us!

Timeliness is Key: “The 2 Day Rule”

One of the primary points Mustafa emphasized was the importance of timely communication. He recounted an incident with Nestlé, where there were recent speculations about their milk formula. Upon reaching out to Nestlé's IR team, they received a prompt response within five minutes. This swift communication helped clarify the situation quickly. As he noted, "If I have a question, can I get an answer quickly? Two days is a good proxy."

Face-to-face interactions and the ‘comfort factor’

Building strong personal relationships between investors and IR teams was another critical aspect Mustafa feels strongly about. Despite recent advancements in video technology, Mustafa highlighted the irreplaceable value of face-to-face interactions, especially in a world where AI can access an increasing amount of information and perform basic analyses of companies’ investment cases. Conferences and personal meetings help build trust and provide deeper insights beyond what is available in the public domain. Those relationships add comfort to Mustafa, especially during a crisis.

Willingness to help, not sell!

Transparency and a willingness to provide detailed information (without crossing legal boundaries) are essential for effective IR teams. Resources such as quality investor presentations, annual reports, and earnings call transcripts play a vital role, whereas the lack of such resources on the IR website can be a major impediment in the investment process.

Mustafa shared his preference for IR teams that are enthusiastic and passionate about their company without being “excessive.” Ideally, he would like to have a relationship with both management and IR, but the ‘what’ and the quality of the relationship are more important than ‘who’ within the company is providing this. He pointed to many examples of companies where ‘IR-only’ teams conduct roadshows and meetings, which are perfectly sufficient.

Final Thoughts

Solid investor relations practices provide this advantage because they help investors like Mustafa get comfortable with the investment case and allow him to articulate it better internally. Timely responses, long-lasting personal relationships, quality dialogue, and high-quality supplementary materials are all fundamental components of this puzzle.

The types of activities stock exchanges offer to their issuers vary by market. A few examples: Nasdaq (through its acquisition from Thomson Reuters in 2012), LSE, or Euronext develop their own tools and programs, which they not only offer to their listed companies but also to other interested parties. NYSE has close partnerships with a few selected IR providers. Moscow Exchange, before it became uninvestable after the war started, hosted a very well-attended IR academy for its tightly knit IR community. GPW in Poland launched the IR Excellence Programme, which surveyed IR websites, where I was personally involved. Both of the UAE exchanges, DFM and ADX, collaborate with brokers and organise investor conferences in Europe, the US, and Asia. Saudi Exchange published a well researched IR Guide for all its listed companies, featuring case studies and process toolkit. And most work with or at least pay lip service to promoting IR and corporate governance best practices through local bodies such as IR Societies.

Essentially, for exchanges, it boils down to two things. First, ensuring that companies’ IR and corporate governance practices are aligned (or as close as possible) with global best practices, making them more attractive to widest possible pool of investors, thereby increasing trading volumes, which then benefits the exchange financially. Second, finding new revenue opportunities. Given that listed companies are "locked in" to a trading venue in a constantly evolving capital market, there are surely (at least in pricinciple) ways to offer value added services to would enhance the given company’s standing in the market.

The first point sounds complex, but if we flip the coin and ask institutional investors what they expect from an exchange and its listed companies, the answers are astonishingly simple; they want to invest in a market where all listed companies have :

1) all the essential material required to analyse the company on their website (quantified to about 8 elements, below), and

2) someone who responds to an email when they request a meeting or call.

It's surprising that, as of writing, no exchange can confidently claim it checks both of these boxes or "underwrites" these elements for all its listed companies. While many platforms (including Bloomberg) and exchanges have added a "contact IR" button, the real challenge lies in getting a response from any company approached for an investor meeting and ensuring that every company under its umbrella maintains a website with basic but essential information.

So this post can serve as an open invitation to any exchange: if they can master these two seemingly simple areas for all their listed companies and maintain them consistently, they would meet the vast majority of market participants' expectations from issuer services teams and become the world’s first truly investor-friendly venue.

And once that is sorted, it could explore other ways to provide value to their listed members. There is no shortage of ideas here, but those could effectively fall into four categories: tools & data, ongoing education, networking, and investor access.

These address the questions issuers most frequently ask, such as:

• How do I learn and keep up with market trends & best practices?

• How can I raise my visibility and access investors?

• What tools should I use to to get the job done?

• How can I meet relevant people in my industry?

• How do I see my shareholding trends?

I could envision a modern exchange hosting an active curriculum of events, including thematic capital markets workshops, opportunities to meet investors, and offering software tools developed either in-house or with third-party partners, through a marketplace while making use of all the data it sits on.

The ultimate goal would be for this exchange to become the epicentre of all capital market activities for companies—a modern-day Agora—where participants can engage in discussions to enhance market attractiveness. At the same time, each participant should be equipped and sufficiently empowered to present their own investment case and confidently and proactive engage with investors and analysts around the world.

The debate in the City of London1 continues on this, with various working groups being created, including the Capital Market Industry Taskforce, whose goal is to ‘maximise the impact of capital market reforms’. Similar projects aim to provide policy recommendations and propose long-term changes to overhaul the rules for companies looking to list their shares in London instead of elsewhere (read: New York). And things seem to be moving. Last month, the UK financial market regulator, The FCA, approved what seems to be one of the biggest changes to its listing rules in decades2. It is in a bit of a tight spot : on one side The FCA is under pressure to be more commercial, but equally wants to preserve high corporate governance standards. Drawing the line in the right spot is tricky. The initial reaction to the recent changes has been positive, though as we all know, these changes take years to fully implement and perhaps longer than that to see the effects come through. Surely there will be more to come on this.

When companies discuss listing venues with their advisors, they usually consider what they get: access to capital (i.e. valuation) and liquidity versus what they have to give in return: costs and ongoing requirements (disclosure, corporate governance compliance, additional litigation risks in the US3, etc.). In many cases, decisions often go beyond pure economics, sometimes involving political decisions from up above. e.g., governments wanting their country's "crown jewels” (e.g. Saudi Aramco comes to mind) to be listed at home rather than in some far-away market. Similarly, trade wars or trade policy disputes, such as those between the U.S. and China, can have an impact.

However, the access to capital element is somewhat tricky to completely isolate and quantify. For most large active institutional investors, it doesn't really matter where a company is listed or traded—large funds can buy US equities as easily as they can buy South African ones. Yes, vis-a-vis frontier markets, investors do place a premium on companies adhering to the relatively higher standards of the LSE or Nasdaq, which acts as a sort of seal of approval. For smaller funds that need to hold assets in USD or lack the capability to trade globally, depositary receipts4 (DRs) have historically filled the gaps for both developed and emerging markets. However, DRs for most part, do not give companies access to the entire investment universe in a given market, and the reason for this is that they trade on carved-out section of the exchange (e.g., the International Order Book in London, or the 144A market for ‘qualified institutional buyers). These sections, while allowing on large active institutional investors, do not permit retail and passive investors to participate. But this is precisely where the growth has been taking place over the last decade.

Both retail investors and passive investors have been on the rise over the last decade, and both groups struggle to access the full gambit of international equities the way large portfolio managers can.

Last week, JP Morgan published a piece that caught my eye. They argued that one of the advantages of listing in the US is indeed access to greater passive investment. According to their estimates, various index funds hold 20-50% of US-listed companies. In Europe, passive ownership ranges from 10-25%. Unlike an active investor, which has more flexibility to access the instrument abroad, passive funds (such as ETFs) have much less of it, and are more tethered to an exchange.

Furthermore, as we have seen and heard for a while, active fund managers on the whole, have delivered (at best!) mixed performances versus their benchmarks in recent years, which is exacerbating the flow of capital into passive funds. Just look at the data:

JP Morgan also looked at a few companies that have moved their primary listings from Europe to the US in the last two years: CRH, Ferguson, Flutter, Linde, and CNH5. They concluded that the valuation gap between these companies and their US peers has indeed narrowed since the listing move, and both passive and active ownership of these stocks has increased since a year before the listing change.

As a result, the US capital market has been gaining popularity in Europe: the number of EU companies seeking single and dual listings in both the EU and US, as well as European companies with ADRs, has increased. And interestingly, the main contributor could have been passive institutions6, assets of which have been increasingly concentrated in just three institutions which we will talk about in the coming posts.

It is fair to generalise that the main audience for these calls are sell-side analysts covering the company or sector, with some attendance from the buy-side. In most calls, the mix is generally skewed towards sell-side analysts, who have coverage on a group of companies (historically less than 10, now often much more) and are required to write reports and generally know the company ‘inside out’. Institutional investors, whose active funds tend to have between 50-70 positions and who have a much larger addressable universe, typically attend calls only when "something is going on” and they need insights right away (e.g. to explain to their investment committee when the share price dipped 10% last week) or when they don’t have another obvious or near term opportunity to interact with management. Generally speaking the earnings call are for the initiated investors and analysts, and this is also the reason why most companies do not actively ‘target’ new people to join the call.

Most institutional investors engage with management either on roadshows or as part of a conference circuit, where they go over the earnings release and discuss any topics of interest, perhaps outside of the quarterly horizon time span. These investors would also likely have some contact with sell-side analysts (or their own research teams) and the chance to read research reports, particularly paying attention to any out-of-consensus opinions or movements in target price or recommendations. I've also seen examples of companies post short updates to investors (or even 2 minute video summaries) along the lines of "key takeaways from our Q2 analyst call," focusing on key discussion topics and accompanying these with a transcript or a "chaptered recording" of the call.

With that said, how to host an earnings conference call adds the most value to participants? 

As part of our conference call feature at Closir, my team and I have helped companies around the world prepare for and host hundreds of calls each quarter. In doing so, we've been able to pick up on great (and not-so-great!) examples of how companies engage with the market during these events. Here are some takeaways (and recommendations) I’d like to share that could be useful for both new and seasoned companies:

1. Engaging Insights: Investors and analysts join the call for insights that go beyond the ‘stiff’ press release. Unfortunately, during the calls, many companies still opt to read out the press release or prepared remarks. On other hand, many companies often have talking points but prefer to speak more naturally rather than reading directly, which appears more engaging for the audience. We’ve also seen some companies embed a video (e.g., a real estate company showcasing their new shopping mall) to provide a slightly more immersive experience. Others invite senior team members, every now and then, to provide colour on other lines of business. I have seen examples where the presentation ends with a “if there is anything we want you to remember, it is this:” slide. I always try to remind myself: a listed company competes for capital (and calendar time!) with thousands of other companies within its addressable universe. Isn’t it a good idea to ensure that when we have their time, it is well spent? Conversely, if an incremental investor feels their time was wasted once, will they engage again?

2. Sound Quality: A vast majority of the earnings calls we host are voice-only with an accompanying presentation slide deck, which is a standard for these types of events. This means that the quality of the voice is key. Quite often, speakers are far from the boardroom phone or speak softly, which significantly impacts the quality of the call (regardless of the conference call provider). Some companies purchase a good quality external microphone that improves the quality of a call tremendously. It may sound extremely trivial, but you’d be surprised how many calls by world class companies are still hosted with poor audio!

3. ‘IR-hosted’ Calls: Even though we always provide an operator for our calls, it is appreciated when the company’s IR team takes on the role of host, instead of relying on a third party operator or in some markets, a broker. The introduction is warm by the head of investor relations, who knows the audience, the subject matter, with text questions that are read out with precision—no industry acronyms are overlooked, and local analyst surnames are correctly pronounced. The queue is managed according to management’s preferences, duplicate questions skipped, all signaling that the company is in charge and directly managing its relationship (and the wider investment case narrative) with the market, without relying too much on third parties.

4. Q&A: After the presentation, the heart of the call shifts to the Q&A session, where ideally companies offer multiple formats for asking questions (e.g., voice and text) to accommodate different preferences. The number of questions often varies—from more than there is time for to, in rare cases, none at all depending on market, company size, shareholder base, coverage etc . Many foreign investors and analysts like to listen in to hear what local ‘on the ground’ analysts are asking, not just to get the answers but also to gauge the tone of the discussion (this is even more prominent in face-to-face meetings). In cases where there is extra time, we’ve seen companies fill in the gaps by posing and answering their own questions. For example, we have heard IR teams say: "Given that we have no questions, here are the most frequently asked questions we received at the conference last week…" thereby supplementing the discussion for the analysts with more useful content.

5. Post-call materials: Giving investors access to material (e.g., the presentation, transcript and recording of the call) on the IR website (e.g. ‘Results Centre’) is generally considered good practice. Some companies fear that publishing a transcript might hurt them in the future. However, the truth of the matter is that representatives from various large financial data companies regularly attend, record, and transcribe all earnings calls and put them on their terminals (many of those transcriptions are auto generated and contain mistakes). Isn’t it better for the company’s IR team to control the narrative of what was said during the call?

Earnings calls are an important piece of the puzzle of the "curriculum"2  for analysts and investors, the long-term "students" of the companies they invest in. They complement other engagement opportunities, including roadshows, capital market days, site visits, and other events. It is our responsibility as IR professionals to ensure that the quarterly earnings call neatly fit to the rest of the curriculum and ensure that ‘students’ are engaged and interested enough to keep coming back !

I even allowed myself to jump the gun and suggested that blockchain-enabled ‘company’ tokens could one day provide a toolkit for an upgraded 2.0 version of loyalty programs, with a tradable asset that could have all sorts of other uses for both private and publicly listed companies alike.

I also noted that there aren’t many companies today focusing on unifying those two worlds; attracting and retaining customers and retail investors. However, it turns out that there are some. Let’s check out a few of them:

• Orlen, one of the largest oil refineries and petrol retailers in Poland and Eastern Europe, launched ‘Orlen in the Wallet’ programme for retail investors in 2018. You join the club by investing in at least 50 Orlen shares (at today’s prices, roughly $1,000), and in return, you get a discount on petrol at their stations as well as a 10% discount on other products. Since 2018, Orlen has welcomed over 10,000 new retail investors.

• Air Liquide, French leader of industrial gases (and hardly a consumer stock!), rewards long-term retail investors by awarding them with extra shares1 : 10% extra dividends and 10% ‘free shares’ if you hold the shares for over two years. This has resulted in over half a million individual investors holding 33% of shares and voting rights, most of whom give their proxy to the president, providing useful support in contentious corporate governance situations2.

• LVMH, one of the world leading fashion groups, boasts a ‘Shareholder Club’ tailored to individual shareholders who show a special interest in the Group. The LVMH Shareholders’ Club offers its members special offers on products, access to a dedicated website, and site visits.

• Carnival Cruises, an international cruise line based in Miami, rewards shareholders holding a minimum of 100 shares with $250 in onboard credit per year. Other cruise operators such as Royal Caribbean and Norwegian have followed suit with similar programs to compete for customer loyalty.

• Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett’s investment conglomerate, owns GEICO Insurance. As a unique perk, Berkshire Hathaway shareholders who own even a single share of stock are eligible for an 8% discount on their auto insurance premium.

From the outset, the benefits seem obvious. Retail investors and customers like to feel special3 (who doesn’t ?), and nurturing the relationship with this community ensures they stay, buy more shares, purchase more products from your stores, and talk about it to all of their friends.

And the resulting side effect of this approach is the creation of a direct relationship between the company and its key audiences, which has been, over the years, eroded by all sorts of middlemen, delivery apps, e-commerce aggregators, resellers, agents etc.

However, there are also clear challenges that prevent the easy adoption of such unified programs, and ample examples where the programs were discontinued. What are the key challenges and considerations?

• Structural: The culture of retail investing needs to be talked about. Countries exhibit varying levels of retail investing culture, influenced by factors such as financial literacy, regulatory environments, and economic conditions. For example, it is a well-known fact that the U.S. has a well-established retail investing culture, with about 60% of households engaging in stock ownership4. The rise of online trading platforms and investment apps has further fuelled retail participation, making it easier for individuals to invest. In Europe, Sweden stands out, with about 22% of households directly owning stocks, supported by a favourable tax environment for investments and a robust capital markets ecosystem that encourages retail participation. In contrast, the Middle East region sees varying levels of retail investment. However, the ‘sophistication’ or interest of those retail investors also vary. Many seasoned IR teams tend to think that ‘an hour spent with retail investors is an hour too many,’ and in many markets, retail investors either focus only on dividend stocks or speculate on stocks that will ‘double in value’, with little interest in engaging with the company or being bogged down by details of the investment case.

• Administrative: One of the key operational challenges is being able to identify shareholders in real time to match them with a loyalty benefit. A significant issue within the majority of public markets is the inability to identify shareholders accurately. This is related to the structure of stock ownership, regulatory environments, and the mechanisms of the stock market, with many middlemen (broker, custodian, clearing house) standing between the company and the end investor. In their research paper Berger, Solomon and Benjamin studied 12 shareholder rewards adopters in the US and concluded that more than half dropped their programs due to ‘difficulties in determining whether there has been a change of beneficial ownership.’ Several solutions partly address this issue (e.g., SRD II regulation in the EU, data feeds from custodians in places like Brazil and Saudi Arabia), but none are perfect.

• Legal: When designing a program that unifies customer loyalty with retail investor, companies must also navigate several legal topics. Capital market regulations, such as those mandating equal access to material information, ensure that no investor receives unfair treatment or privacy laws, like the GDPR, that protect the identities of private investors, requiring companies to handle personal data with care and transparency. Additionally, consumer protection laws mandate that any perks offered to investor-customers are clearly communicated and delivered without deception.

• Financial: Firstly, the time and effort required to design a program like this involve several people and resources. For many existing programs, it took two to three years of planning. Secondly, there are costs associated with communicating, launching, and maintaining such a program. Thirdly, getting the reward balance right is crucial. Offering perks and benefits comes at a cost5 but the benefits might not be meaningful enough (or on the flip side, too costly) to make a difference. Striking the right balance could be challenging.

• Then there are all sorts of reputational risks that need to be anticipated and managed from the get-go. If the program fails, how will retail investors, equipped with social media handles, react? Some negative experiences can quickly snowball into widespread criticism. A poorly executed program might not only alienate loyal customers but also damage the company's brand and do the opposite of what it was meant to.

Having said this, my personal view is that this will be an area of development and growth. There are a few high level trends blowing wind into the sails here.

Firstly, the activity and sophistication of retail investors are increasing. Individuals are becoming more savvier about their savings and what they own. Secondly, while the concept is not new, there seems to be more focus on the ‘experience economy,’ with businesses focusing on creating unique, engaging, and personalised experiences that resonate emotionally with customers. Thirdly, AI-generated mass-production engine will give way to a renaissance of sorts—a nimble, community-led company that provides a deeply personal products, services and experiences (both on and offline) for its audiences. And lastly, technological advancements will make it easier for companies to make all of this happen. The archaic capital market structure we see today will eventually evolve. Whether blockchain technology or something else will provide the leap forward remains to be seen.

Bringing it all together

While integrating customer loyalty with retail investor benefits is intriguing and presents clear opportunities for fostering deeper brand connections and increasing shareholder engagement, it also faces significant operational challenges and risks that varies from market to market, and industry to industry. Due to these challenges, the concepts discussed here remain fairly nascent and is currently only seen on the fringes of the capital market, with only a handful of companies providing useful case studies.

There are reasons to watch this area with optimism, as many of the challenges and risks are being addressed and will be resolved in the future!

Resources:

I have created a basic field guide that companies can use internally, which may help them develop their own feasibility studies for this project. You can download it here.

During the a recent conference in Wrocław, I had a chance to interview him and discuss various aspects of how investor relations are done in his company.

What can we learn from how things are done in this company?

Here are some of my notes from my conversation:

1/ Patrick strongly believes in the significance of maintaining relationships with capital market participants. He feels frustrated when meetings lack genuine interest in the company and are attended with an attitude of "let's just take the meeting to avoid missing something," especially when web cams are turned off during virtual meetings, leaving the IR team speaking to a blank screen.

2/ Patrick stresses that investing time with investors or analysts, both online and offline, not only provides them with necessary information for their investment process but also helps build trust. This trust is valuable in the long run. For instance, a large fund that recently sold part of their stock reached out to Patrick with an explanation, feedback that would have been difficult to obtain without the established relationship.

3/ Managing internal relationships is as important as those with the outside world. Patrick discussed how much time and effort he spent post IPO ensuring the management team and other internal stakeholders understand the value of the investor relations functions and helping answer the question ‘What is Investor Relations really for?’.

4/ Continually educating sell-side is a key pillar of Zalando’s IR strategy. The company is covered by over 30 sell-side analysts, with not all analysts are equally engaged with the company. Frequent turnover doesn’t make things easier.

5/ The number of annual investor meetings is not necessarily an effective performance metric for IR. It's more efficient to measure potential buying behaviour following these meetings and use that data to offer additional time or management access where needed. For Patrick, this approach seems more of an art than a science. However, it's essential for every company, along with their IR and management teams, to determine the best way to address this critical aspect of investor relations.

6/ With regard to generative AI in the context of IR, Patrick believes it can support preparations for earnings releases and free up time to focus on what is most valuable—building relationships with investors and analysts. The main theme of the German IR Society conference this month is dedicated to AI.

7/ One of the key functions of the ESG team within the IR group is to ensure that rating agencies accurately reflect the company's data in their scoring methodologies. Additionally, the team plays a crucial role in discussing ESG-related topics with investors, whose interest is increasing over time.

8/ Patrick’s team consists of 5 people, responsible for various areas including ESG, back office processes, research, earnings releases, and shaping the equity story, among others.

Once the shares are trading and advisors have placed the shares, many of these companies find themselves pondering how to draw in new institutional capital, broaden their investor base, and ultimately boosting their valuation. Institutional investors in the public market are still (albeit with ample caution) warming up to this industry and often require additional education and reassurance, especially considering the industry's chequered history and credibility concerns.

In a recent discussion with one of these companies, we discussed a few guiding principles that could pave the way for a successful investor relations and engagement strategy for web3 companies in the public sphere.

1. A focus on long-term credibility building is number one. The saying "we invest in lines, not dots" resonates with many institutional investors. It implies that by tracking a company over a period of time and gathering various data points, investors can form a "credibility line" that helps understand the investment case and establish trust with management team. It is common for institutional investors to require two to three meetings before initiating a position, emphasising the importance of providing comprehensive context about the company, its competitive landscape, regulatory developments, and more.

   
   This approach is generally fundamental to all industries but is particularly vital here.

   
   As one investor recently put it to me:
   
   ”The goal (of IR) should be to build a relationship of trust and understanding with the investor. If we end up buying shares in a company because they told us everything is amazing and didn't tell us about all the bad stuff. And then the bad stuff happens. We're going to sell the shares and we will never buy them again. Because we'll say, well, sorry, we don't trust these guys. Or more simply, we'll say, well, look, clearly we did not understand this business. We failed in our job and we're not going to go anywhere near it because we clearly don't know what this business is about. And so you will have forever lost an investor. The goal of a good presentation (or a meeting) is: giving the investor the comfort that he understand the business. This is very different to doing a sales job.”

Practically this could involve dedicating the initial chapters of your IR presentation to properly ‘setting the scene’, soliciting feedback from investors with questions like "How well do you feel you understand our industry and our company?" or organising regular seminars and teaching sessions on industry developments.

The goal is to educate, not to sell.

2. Proactive investor targeting. There's no established corner for public web3/crypto stocks in capital markets, and sell-side equity research is negligible compared to more traditional sectors. However there are useful examples of how listed companies could identify potential investors. One such strategy might involve identifying a peer group of public crypto companies and analysing public filings1 of their institutional investors. For instance, Coinbase has roughly 2,658 institutional investors, including a mix of large US funds, passive ETFs, and global mandate funds, some of which have only increased their exposure recently. Another angle could be to target institutional investors with a history investing early in emerging sectors such as robotics. After completing the initial data analysis, proactively and systematically reaching out to introduce your company and investment case could serve as an effective second step in the process.
   

3. Ensuring the IR operation aligns with market standards is also essential, focusing on 101 of transparency and disclosure without overly creative deviations. Here boring is good. Public market investors expect certain practices from listed companies, regardless of their sector or geography. Key pillars here include adhering to regular financial disclosures, maintaining an accessible IR website with key pieces of information, conducting quarterly earnings calls, and ensuring regular access to the management team. All done with a savvy IR officer at the helm who is financially savvy, industry-knowledgeable, responsive, and proactive in investor engagement.

Public capital markets are not the natural homes for digital asset companies. However, it is there and not on decentralised or centralised crypto exchanges, where trillions of dollars of capital reside. Spread across a vast array of global investor groups, these markets effectively provided liquidity, price discovery, and continuous access to capital for listed companies for decades. For companies opting to take this step and aiming to tap those advantages, investing in a suitable investor relations setup would be a reasonable decision.