I think we all know that they are simply not going to invite themselves to be put on the spot. I haven't really thought about it on previous calls, but have retailers EVER got through with questions on a call like this..? Not sure they have..? IIRC it's just the same group of nominated analysts, always. Does anyone know of any companies that have calls like this and open Q's to the public that are not pre-screened or pre-selected..? Even the recent Tesla call wan't "open" - afaik the questions were submitted and selected for answer, so they still pick and choose what issues they want to address.
The only chance is still the AGM, where they have little choice but to give some response.
Do we hear the analysts asking who was responsible for A40 and how have they been held accountable? Of course not. It has no place on their "valuation spreadsheet". They are more keen on production and cost guidance. A totally different care factor to most of "us".
I get that he was trying to ask the Q's in an open forum and that was rejected, but if the company at least offered to address/discuss any of Wary's Q's, which it appears they did, albeit "offline", all I am saying is why not go that one extra step to see how it goes..? At least he had his foot in the door and could have then followed up further with concerns about "ignoring the actual question" or "not providing any clarity" etc, which would have perhaps been one effective avenue to seek more info and make a clear point, directly to the company, about avoiding shareholders' valid concerns.
He took a couple of steps, which was great, a couple more may have been 10x more effective than where it ended, that's all. I get he was fed up. Sure. Pushing on a bit further may have had a return though imo. As it was, the outcome was "nothing".
I still like the idea of a letter sent to management, with mostly common questions/concerns, by hundreds(?) of shareholders. I think Gareth offered to draft something iirc? This could be effective imo. How could they ignore that? If they did, it would be another great question for the AGM - how can they simply ignore the direct written concerns of hundreds of shareholders..? They couldn't imo, and at least something would have to change/improve... small steps may be the only option. I doubt the lizard had drummed up enough votes for anything else - what does he need, another 100 million on side..?! good luck with that lizard man... dreaming imo for that to be "the solution".
Or is it all (any pressure on them) just perhaps a fruitless exercise..? Is it a case of what some here have been saying - that they will only reveal what they HAVE to, anything more is just informing and therefore assisting the competition? Not that I agree with that, but it may be the tactic in play..?
I do suspect, however, that a hundred respectful yet firm letters to Simon may shake the tree somewhat. After all, he is running the company now and I'm sure has will push for what he thinks is right/good/better, regardless of the AT/MR background. Gotta be positive I suppose. Thoughts on such a letter..?
Expand
