I rang the Company Secretary who was most pleasant and courteous, and didn't attempt to stonewall me.
I didn't take down the whole conversation and certainly did not record it as the latter is against the law unless the other person agrees.
Naturally, he didn't contradict the CEO (nor would one expect him to) but said he was not present at the briefing. IIRC he said the CEO and one other (whose position I have forgotten) was.
He commented along the lines of 'ELD is among the last (presumably, my words ASX 200 companies) to have an AGM (each year, my words) and hence we (i.e. ELD) think(s) it possible that institutions that all along have wanted to sell (on the basis of 'this is about as good as it gets for ELD') just hadn't got around to so doing, and the briefing (which according to him didn't release anything other than what Mr Allison as CEO said was discussed) merely confirmed the institutions' view (and hence, my words, the instos. sold scrip).
All things are possible but I wasn't overly convinced, later thinking 'instos. have analysts dedicated to each ASX sector, so it's not credible that they'd wait weeks or months to sell unless they believed the SP would rise significantly and hence they'd receive higher proceeds.'
The Company Secretary agreed with me that perceptions are all-important, as I commented along the lines of 'a perception is ELD was only forced into admitting that it had held a briefing by dint of the ASX issuing a reverse speeding ticket'.
I also referred to how the share price significantly dropped at the time and IIRC there was high volume of some 4.5 million shares traded. I said to the ELD Secretary that often information is traded by way of a raised eyebrow and that institutions wouldn't bother fronting to briefings unless they thought new information could be obtained. (They want to dig deeper than motherhood statements from company or contracted PR gurus).
IIRC, I may have said to the Company Secretary 'often it's the small things in life that trip us up' or similar (not my exact words).
We agreed, as I'd suggest do many investors, that Mr Mark Allison (CEO) had done a terrific job reinventing ELD from the dark days of Futuris in c.2009-13. I then commented that (temporarily at least) Mr Allison's reputation (and the silent Chairman Mr Ian Wilton) had suffered from this episode.
That was about it: I hope ELD has taken the criticism on board.
Retail SH are almost always at a disadvantage to institutional ones: that's the way of the world. I am no expert on the ASX Listing Rules but perhaps it needs to have stronger corporate governance around such events, although the antithesis is that if this occurred, brokers may not bother seeking a private meeting with company management, and nor would the Australian Shareholders Association.
It's a complex subject, with some probably suggesting 'no change is required' because if some diligent brokers are smart enough to obtain information others lack, it's they and their clients who ought benefit.
The other extreme - and it is 'out there' - would be market participants who suggest District Court/County Court (latter is Victoria) judges ought hand down gaol terms for those who don't adequately according to ASX/ASIC inform the total market about 'material' news. This would of course require legislation mentioning ASIC, but probably not ASX as it's not a government authority.
The Company Secretary finished by informing me 'ELD welcomes feedback' so I perceived that I was listened to and hope I didn't come across to this important gent as completely uninformed. I stress I received a very fair hearing.
I did not ask if anyone else had contacted ELD re the same matter.
Expand
(20min delay)