Hi red,
As my first post AGM was a summary, I have decided to post this as a different perspective on the AGM.
As a shareholder who attended the meeting, there is a particular irony in you labelling yourself as one of the quiet shareholders. That being said I really appreciated having you front and centre of the room as the questions got under way. I was able to sit in comfort for the duration as you and a couple of others grilled the bod, there was no need for me to speak up. I must also say at this stage that I was not particularly intending to participate, unless my questions went unanswered- but they didn't so all good. And so I spent the day as a quiet shareholder - listening and observing. As an investor/shareholder I always remove all personal sentiment and emotion from the equation and dealings for obvious reasons.
I witnessed you castrating the bod, pointing and wagging your finger at them, shouting them down at times and refusing to be cowed by responses and attempts to calm the situation. The bod should definitely be feeling uneasy with the current circumstances and I was glad you made them uncomfortable and aware of this.
However this could have been achieved in an assertive manner and as I said I don't like to make business personal and in the process of you making the bod uncomfortable, safe to say there was a fair bit of emotion swirling around the room. Had I been sitting on the bod side of the table it is likely that would have ended with a violent confrontation.I listened to shareholders who like myself were unhappy with recent events and I listened to what mgmt were saying in response. I was not interested in particular lines of questioning revolving around the website and historic events/mistakes - for the simple reason that I view them as emotionally charged and unproductive regardless - topics that actually received a lot of attention during discussion.
The line of questioning I was more interested in surrounded cash flow, all things ski, Marcus, where things currently stand with financiers and how the company planned to proceed from here. Even the Marcus thing bordered on something that I wasn't all that fussed about because it is what it is at this stage, he's gone and I still planned to hold regardless but I was curious to hear what the bod had to say about it.
And so while we may agree on a number of things I would like to say that you amongst others brought an unnecessary baggage with you on the day, that anger didnt achieve anything and fuelled a toxic atmosphere in the room and to be honest made it difficult for me to get a true reading of the bod as they were in complete defense mode, for example - smirking - which without the anger in the room could be conceived as contempt but with the anger just as likely to be a defense mechanism.
As to your post you have said that your account of the meeting is factual, I would like to point out that that factual account holds many opinions within it and imo you were naive on the day particularly with your suggestion around the disclosure of confidential matters and I believe your post has further backed up this naivity with your assertion that trust and competency are what it's all about, not to mention your unfounded paranoia over ski walking.
Business is business and these outside feelings and matters are best keep separate from that imo. The directors hold no personal feelings towards me as a holder and I hold no personal feelings towards them. I invested here at my own risk and I don't apportion blame to anyone other than myself. If I am not happy with directors I will never consider putting my hard earned in or I will sell.
I note that in your second post we are more or less taking the same position towards our holdings into the future and so it further begs the question as to what the need for the anger was if you are going to stick with the same approach anyway. As to the questions that I wanted answered I received satisfactory answers for the most part and I was happy enough to continue my observations in the bar after the meeting. It actually proved to be more productive than the meeting itself.
As a side note and picking on mumanddads post - I believe there are lots here on HC who dont recognise the geo-political positioning that is most certainly taking place in the background. These deposits are not only important to sh here, queensland state and the federal gvt - they are of importance to all the heavyweight economies around the world. For example it is well known that Bill Gates is said to be scouring the world for cobalt reserves and hes just a person, not a govt. The EV revolution will be the 4th industrial revolution - any big economy sitting on their hands would be foolish, all will be jostling for position. And so here we have auz pushing ski to put up or shut up, safe in the knowledge that the australian govt has their backs promoting the deposits to the usa - having already toured the us/europe in the previous few months......
No offence intended Red. All IMO
@RED328
(20min delay)