Greetings all, I have returned from the sunny Great Barrier Reef.
A lot of excitement while I was away it seems. Having read a few of the nugatory posts, I decided not to scroll back past today to save myself having a brain aneurysm.
The company must have really wanted this strategic placement, as they had alternative options which I'm sure they considered.
It's important to remember that those who lose the most in an 8% dilution are the top holders, of which management are. Therefore, they must be very excited to work with First Samuel, being such a well known and well respected firm who have clearly done their due diligence and appear to have been sitting on the sideline watching for several years.
Obviously no one likes dilution, but if it goes to the right people, which in this case it appears to have, since they stated to their own investors that they envisage earning significant returns in the 3-5+ year range, I am confident that they will hold their position long term unless something unusual were to occur.
The annual report was a good read for any new comers and summarised the year well. The only things that stood out to me was the same mistake as last year, where in one section it states the unlisted options created in 2014 had an exercise price of $0.096 which is incorrect and should say $0.0096. Same mistake two years in a row I believe.
As for the remuneration debate which I saw a glimpse of, I'm very 50/50 on remuneration, but that's because I am inexperienced. I haven't had to work as the CEO of an ASX Listed company, dealt with disgruntled and impatient shareholders or flown internationally on a regular basis to attempt to close deals which are undoubtedly complex.
If I were to look at pure figures and the revenue of the company, I would think that the remuneration is undeserving and high. If I were to consider that remuneration is about more than the performance of the company and is supposed to reflect the position, difficulties, uncomfortable living and constant availability to all, I would think it's actually not that bad and there are people who do a lot less for a lot more.
I am 100% against any future incentives for management to further "align their interests with shareholders", as I believe occupying the top positions on the register is enough alignment and undermines the argument as to why they need any further incentives. That's just my opinion though and again, I don't have experience in their environment.
I believe the company have made the right move with this strategic placement, and I do believe it was strategic, and they can now continue to play out their longer term strategy and start expansion.
It's way behind schedule, everyone knows that, but it's pretty evident to me that being captain hindsight behind a computer criticising every decision that I've never personally had to make, is a pretty useless and pathetic exercise.
The other thing I realised, which I thought was worth noting in the Annual report was the vast improvement in the financial position of the company. This was prior to $5m in cash being added to current assets.
A massive increase in total assets, which excludes an additional $5m from the placement to First Samuel, and an equally massive reduction in liabilities.
This is a great place for the company to be in. With nameplate expected this month, the next plant order likely imminent since they now have funds and the potential for further development on both the Minera agreement and Wei Hua agreement, the company is set to grow in leaps and bounds.
(20min delay)