Gents,
lets just think what you may view the board needs to be changed for
1/Poor Operational Communication
2/Destruction of share market value
3/Destruction of share Capital value per share
Well I'm not out to crucify a board for making IMHO some SIMPLE POOR CAPITAL decisions for its existing shareholders.
The board with now 100% more shares on issue will have many new groups of shareholders who will be offering them no doubt,suitable advice on increasing THEIR asset value and managing the company funds better.I hope that's for the benefit of ALL shareholders,not just underwriters and asset strippers after a quick turnover on assets bought cheap.Send a shot across the bows with your votes-YES.Sink the boat or board it by hired pirates-loose the booty of operationally good management as the boat gets ripped apart and the boats owners get even less from a the scrapped wreck.
From what I can see the Real Issue is the lack of SOPHISTICATION and FOCUS in handling shareholder value and share asset backing.That paucity has seen asset backing and shareholder value diminished by a third while shareholders not only suffer a CAPITAL LOSS, as well as Halving of their investments ownership in a viable company and having to stump up for a tax liability on dividends paid.
A different attitude would have seen the funds paid as taxable dividends used in a share buyback on market when shares were below asset backing.
If shares were bought below asset backing that would have INCREASED nett asset backing,while REDUCING the number of shares on issue cheap.
That would have saved shareholders TAX,supported the share price when holders have needed to sell and lifted NETT asset backing Just as CSL does.
When of course the share price was well above asset backing,the company could have offered an optional 1 for 10 share issue at the asset backing of $1.20,which would have provided the opportunity for shareholders to sell at a premium on market and buy new at a discount,pay some tax and NOT HURT THE COMPANY or shareholders NETT asset backing.
No need for underwriters and fancy offer agreements,with an adviser cut off the top.
It would not have diminished per Share Capital value,but would have provided a good source of funds to further pay down debt.e,g, 1500m shares on issue 1 for 10 issue 150m shares at $1.20 would have raised $160m to reduce debt at NO CAPITAL COST to shareholders.
Dare I say it with hindsight,but if the Board had done just this,then the potential change of circumstance now being seen would have us still holding more than the $1.20 asset backing of JUNE,a higher share price and half the number of shares NOW on issue.It would have had its near $200m for its POTENTIAL change in circumstances (potential increase in debt) that caused this fiasco Capital raising and my personal 50% loss of value and ownership of the company.
DYOR + DYODD
If cash flow improves,I would expect an on market buy back,to improve shareholder asset backing instead of any future taxable dividends from a shareholder focused board,OR I'M OUT,before they halve my asset value once again.
I think this Board is now learning the hard way.
IMHO Either they change their focus from JUST the business to shareholders and shareholder asset management,or I doubt they will be welcome on any other board in the future by another companies shareholders no matter how well they handle the steel business.
Expand
(20min delay)