Disclosure and communication serve different purposes; and the distinction may matter more than we think. Since taking on the role of Acting CEO at Letlole La Rona, I have found myself returning to a question that is perhaps less operational than it is relational: how does a listed company engage the market in a way that is genuinely useful to those who follow it?
The strategic foundations at LLR are clear, and the team has both continuity and experience. But the question of how a company communicates (not just what it reports) is one I think is worth reflecting on more openly, particularly during a period of leadership transition.
Listed companies, ourselves at LLR included, invest significant effort in meeting disclosure requirements. Reports are filed, results are published, and regulatory obligations are met. And yet there is often a sense (one I do not think is unique to LLR) that the information available to the market does not always translate into a shared understanding of where a company is going and why.
I am not sure the answer lies in more disclosure alone. It may lie in a different quality of conversation, and it is one we continue to reflect on from both a governance and best practice perspective.
The investors and analysts who follow listed property companies bring considerable knowledge to the table; this is without doubt. What is often most valuable to these stakeholders is context: understanding what the numbers mean in the specific environment a company operates in, what strategic choices have been made and why, and what the risks and opportunities ahead actually look like. Indeed, it helps them hold us to account. That kind of contextual engagement, however, is harder to achieve through reporting cycles alone.
For LLR, context is particularly important. We operate in Botswana’s formal property market, which is still developing as an institutional asset class. We have been listed on the BSE since 2011 and our portfolio spans retail and industrial assets across Botswana in Gaborone, Lobatse, Mahalapye and Francistown. Like many companies in growing markets, we are conscious that our results are best understood alongside a clear picture of the market conditions and strategic decisions behind them; not in isolation from them.
Good investor engagement, in our experience, is proactive rather than reactive. It does not wait for results season to explain context that has been building for months. It anticipates the questions that informed observers are likely to ask, and it addresses them honestly, including where the answers are uncertain or where the picture is more complex than a headline number suggests. We are not perfect at this, but put in the work to improve. Why? Because it matters. It is crucial to how – and this is our belief – to improving something that is perhaps underappreciated in how listed companies think about communication: that engagement is most valuable when it is genuinely two-directional.
Investor and analyst questions (the hard ones in particular) are not a threat to be managed. They are a source of discipline. They surface assumptions that management may have stopped questioning. They reflect how the company is being read from the outside, which is not always the same as how it understands itself from within. It is about holding ourselves and each other to account for the ultimate benefit of the shareholder and stakeholder.
Consistency matters too. Trust between a listed company and its investors is not built in a single interaction or a particularly well-received results presentation. It accumulates over time, through a pattern of communication that is reliable, clear, and honest about both progress and setbacks. Companies that communicate well only when results are strong tend to find that the market discounts their narrative accordingly.
For companies operating in developing markets, there is an additional layer to this. The investment case for a market like Botswana is not yet widely understood by all segments of institutional capital, and building that understanding is a long-term endeavour. It requires patience, a willingness to explain structural dynamics that may be unfamiliar, and an honest acknowledgement of the constraints alongside the opportunities. This is not a communications challenge that can be resolved in a single roadshow or annual report.
Increasingly, regulators and governance frameworks are recognising this. The trend across African exchanges is toward stronger expectations around stakeholder engagement, not merely disclosure compliance. The direction of travel is clear: listed companies are expected to communicate, not just report. How individual companies respond to that expectation will, over time, become a meaningful part of how they are assessed.
I am mindful that writing this as an acting CEO carries its own context. Leadership transitions are moments when the market reasonably asks questions about continuity and direction. My answer to those questions is straightforward: the strategy at LLR is intact, the team is stable, and our collective role is to continue building on the foundations that are already in place. But I also think transitions can be useful moments for reflection; an opportunity to ask not just what we are doing, but how we are doing it, and whether there are areas where we can do it better.
Investor engagement is one of those areas for us. We welcome the opportunity to engage directly; to discuss the portfolio, the market, and the questions that matter to those who follow us. This piece is offered in that spirit: as an opening to a more ongoing and substantive conversation and a commitment to keep learning and keep engaging. Always.
By Rorisang Modikana, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Letlole La Rona Limited
