I've been in here a long time now. I don't necessarily agree...

I've been in here a long time now. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Sandon and ST are saying, but I've voted with them for several reasons.

1 - I feel management are setting themselves targets that don't necessarily match with shareholders best interests. Whilst I'm broadly supportive of Who Dat (my view was we were undervalued because of the 1 asset focus so I was ok with paying close to market value for a new asset to diversify our asset base and hopefully realise the underlying value of KAR) but the rem report is clear, there were no financial gateways there. Thats awful behaviour from an ASX listed company, reward them just for doing something regardless of the financial gateways that they tick off. Rubbish corporate governance

2 - The rest refinancing. We've extended the debt by 1 year, for an increase in interest levels, I see no way how that generates any real interest savings over the term of the loan, potentially the opposite. I suspect they did this because there is no repayment profile like there is with the current debt, however with the level of cash generation and capex levels in 2024 there was no need to do it now when we are living in a high cost interest environment, potentially we refinanced at the peak of the market and there was no real reason to do it from my perspective. They should have made the right decision and deferred refinancing until market conditions are better. I haven't seen their goals for 2024, probably refinancing is 1 of them, see point 1 where these measures that reward with STI and LTI may not be shareholders interests

3 - Dividends - I've long thought that we should have had a dividend even a small open. BPT started out with small dividends (circa 1.5% yield) because they decided that a small dividend is better than none, particularly when it increases purchasing of your shares as it spreads risk between income and growth so some additional funds would likely take up positions, but nope, no foresight of this, potentially due to the frankly pathetic levels of share ownership that the board and key management personnel have.

I'm happy with a mix of income and growth, I don't want to go down the suggestion of just bleeding the assets, but there needs to be a complete rethink in the rem report around linking STI and LTI payments with true overall shareholder returns, not just completing an action.