I completely agree that this is and has been a serious matter. The company has clearly been in discussions with ASX and has said so. I am not party to what those discussions have covered, and neither are you, so what has been tabled will remain unknown to us all. But I
expect that there will have been a degree of frankness between both parties. In previous "please explain" communications from ASX it has asked very good and searching questions of AKP. And AKP has been required to answer them in detail - including in better levels of detail than SH have been accustomed to hearing. There will undoubtedly have been a more thorough explanation of the events surrounding the developments and their timings, and the expectations and significance that attach to them. More thorough than SH get to hear? Probably yes. Do I mind that? Absolutely I do.
SH should get to hear as much of that detail as is necessary to make the underlying situation clear to us. Does that always happen at AKP? No. Do I mind that? Absolutely. Am I happy that this is the typical way AKP conducts its communications with its SH? Very much not. It is very disappointing, and you will see from my posts over the years that I have said so, both on HC and directly to the company. Does this matter? Does it matter to me, and can I do anything about it? Other than what I already do there seems to be little more that I can do. And be assured I have passed on my concerns and suggestions to AKP's management, and management has responded specifically to those issues at the past few AGMs. My behaviour and attitudes are up front and entirely explicable. Is all of this something I am content with? Absolutely not. Does this mean that I close my eyes to what I do not wish to contemplate? Again, absolutely not.
I do expect that there will be more to the discussions than whether this complies with regulations and requirements or not. While I do not expect ASX will take sides I do expect they will maintain an attitude of sympathetic receptiveness to the explanations company's provide them with. I certainly hope that this is the case. As I also say, and as I believe is the most pertinent fact of the matter: the company was hit broadside by significant disappointments to its expected production schedules. These could easily have seriously damaged the company. I believe that in the heat of the company's response to this it did whatever it could, including the Chairman putting his own personal cash at serious risk on behalf of the company, and thus of other shareholders investments. I consider that to be commendable. Did all things all go exactly according to plan? Obviously not. Were planned events followed through to the letter when circumstances changed? (i.e. the non arrival of chips that then could not be demo'd at an EGM expected to be called for that purpose.) Maybe not. Can that be forgiven? I imagine so.
If the company survives and recovers its footing does that error really matter that much? I tend to think not. I imagine that ASX could likely see it that way too. The difference between us here is that I hope the ASX is not focussed so much on doing everything by the book that it would be indifferent to and unsupportive of the outcome for the company. That does not, with all dues respects, seem to be your hope.
AKP, or any company faced with similar problems has a difficult course to chart. Firstly it has to drive events to get the results it want. That is not that easy I expect. Then there are the attitudes of its shareholders to manage. On the one hand there is the constant clamour of SH who just want to hear good news and fulfilled plans and who have little tolerance for delay or the need for patience. And that is fair enough, as far as it goes, but achieving that outcome is not always as straightforward as any of us would like. On the other there are those, like yourself, who seem to look for and take every opportunity to attribute incompetence and mischief and barely plausible ulterior motives to every negative outcome. Please correct me if I am wrong, but In such cases the motives of so many naysayers with nothing to gain or lose from shifts of the SP in either direction, but with so much negative vehemence and vitriol to contribute, such a level of interest will be hard to fathom for most SH. Surely it's not just an excess of caffeine speaking? One would wonder where your reward comes from to repay you for your time input. And it is fair enough for other SH to want you to explain your motivation. Please explain.
Between these voices there is insufficient ground for complete clarity and truth without massive and complicated explanations most of which are not essential to the proper sailing of the ship. While I would like to see a lot more information about what is going on behind the curtain I may not be able to make that happen. Investing all comes down to confidence in the good will and integrity of other people. But when I make a choice about what I assess the situation to be I have to have confidence in it. That task is harder to maintain when one suspects that others are deliberately trying to undermine such rational confidence for nefarious reasons of their own.
And yes, I am familiar with the situation at PET, of which I was also a holder for several years. Your comments are again not entirely objective there, and your antipathy to FB and SvB is also again appear to be very clearly evident.
(20min delay)