TNG AGM Report 2020
I usually put together a bit of a report from the AGM to document my own thoughts to look back on over the course of the year as well as to assist others who didn’t have the benefit of attending.
This year this is not as important as anyone could have joined in.But I have a few notes anyway.
AGM link, the first issue was a typo in the AGM web link. I went to check it early today with the email that TNG sent out to all holders on the 20th of November. The link didn’t work due to a typo, the second link that I tried was a company announcement, this too didn’t work.I ended up getting the link working after some googling but found this to be poor form from the company.I have since found that the announcement on the 28th of October - Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form had the correct address. I’m sure that the company will learn from this.
The meeting kicked off at 10am WST, present from the company were (allegedly) Paul Burton, Greg Durack, Simon Moreton, John Elkington, Jason Giltay, Paula Raffo, Paul Burton, the companies corporate lawyer and someone from computer share was dialled in.
There was no video feed from the presenters which made it difficult to guage body language.
Points from the meeting.
There was nothing new from the meeting presentation for me. All is available in the presentation, so I wont elaborate on this.
From the questions I learned –
- JE confirmed that the directors had a paycut of 20% for the 3 month period of Covid and were to be buying shares either on market or through the placement with their remaining post tax salary.There was some further follow up questions regarding this due to some concern if this had happened or not.JE confirmed that it had.This whole uncertainty is a big distraction for me.The company has not been clear on this since it was raised in the March quarterly report and it should have been dealt with clearly.It is obvious that this is a bone of contention with some shareholders still.I hope the company can further clarify this in the immediate future.
- Last years AGM was a disrupted by the company not being able to answer a question regarding resolution 6 (PB share loan repayment).This was raised again in question as it had apparently not ben resolved and communicated to the shareholders as JE promised that it would last year.JE confirmed that PB’s share loan had been extended until 27th of November 2023. This was news to me.He confirmed that the share purchase price was confirmed at 14.3 cents, much higher than quoted in last years AGM.Again this was another unnecessary distraction.
- PB confirmed that there may be a few announcements this calendar year and a shareholder newsletter.
- PB all but confirmed that Mt.Peake mine site was shovel ready, pending finance – this is welcome news.
- The London listing is on hold, this may be revisited some time in the future to assist funding the equity component.
- PB confirmed that they believe that the rules allow NAIF to fund around $100M, application was being progressed but is not assured.PB also mentioned something about the NAIF being able to assist with a guarantee or some form of assistance the loan from KfW. Others may have a better recollection of this that me.
- PB confirmed that Summitomo is not longer actively pursuing VRB’s as the high Vanadium price was an impediment.He did say that the company was corresponding on an ad hoc basis but I don’t think there is any agreement or relationship there. Not great news for VRB development.
- PB confirmed that there is ongoing contact with 3rd parties for TIVAN licencing, but nothing solid and companies may have been trying to suss out the technology to give them selves a head start (even though the tech is patented).BBI are no longer actively progressing TIVAN for their project and their project may even be on hold.
- When PB was quizzed on spinning out TIVAN he mentioned that there was more interest in Singapore and it was more likely to be spun out there if so.Interesting, there may be more to this story than let on.
- Placement shortfall. JE/PB confirmed that they are actively trying to complete the rest of the 30% of the placement @ $0.10 when the share price allowed. It will go to Instutional investors or Sophs.It will definitely not go to the directors due to listing rule 10.11.The company was quizzed extensively why they were not taking it up and the lawyers answered.This was a cop out if you ask me.The directors had ample opportunity to take up as much of the placement before it closed and chose not to do so.
- When quizzed about project debt / equity ration PB said that this will be up to the recommendation of those handling this but suggested 65/35 to max 70 / 30.This was a surprise given the latest IIR research note which was released on 18th of November and sponsored by TNG which upped their valuation based on a ratio of 80/20.This does not sit well with me, they upped valuation based on this and would have had good access to the company.
Overall I left the AGM disappointed.The administrative issue of the Directors pay reduction and share purchase had been poorly handled and not tidied up before the AGM.There was too much attention placed on this (rightly) detracting from the better news.The company need to clear this up ASAP.
JE also said that they would likely go with this AGM method going forward.I strongly encoutage the company to communicate this better (read correct URL) and let shareholders know that they will need their HIN to sign in as a shareholder and ask questions. I also hope for a hybrid model so shareholders can read the body language, give the directors an elbow tap and have a chat after the meeting.
My final thought was that the directors took the time to answer all questions.They were not all read out as asked (typed in) but they did take the time to answer as many as were asked.
To finish on a higher note was it the AGM that we hoped for? NO. But FEED is still expected before the end of the year and final EPCM costings 1-2 months after this.Let’s keep focussed on this.FID could still very well happen by mid 2021.
(20min delay)