On the AGM and the company's prospects, I sit somewhere between your assessment and that of
@Starscreen, but I'm a lot closer to that of
@Starscreen.
First let's be glass half empty. I submitted a few questions to the AGM that weren't answered:
1. One was censored before Kevin heard it, so the lack of an answer isn't on him. I queried whether their claim that "0.009%" of 9SP's shares had traded via Primary Markets was a 99% understatement. On my numbers it is actually 100x that, ie 0.9% of SOI, that traded in those windows. But those numbers weren't put to Kevin by whoever was passing questions on to him.
2. Another question I asked was put to him but he didn't substantively answer it. I asked what liquidity options were being considered other than a buyback. Kevin's response was that they were considering a buyback, and other options. Not exactly an answer!
I also thought it amusing that no-one had proofed their script and so they said they'd be releasing voting results to ASX.
But - I don't agree with you about 9SP failing to consider shareholders' best interests, nor about the necessary turnaround. Quite the opposite, actually.
Re shareholders' best interests:
1. 9SP killed the PM trading window for a few reasons -
- one was cost (even assuming I'm right about the 0.9% vs 0.009%, that's still only around $40k of shares, and 9SP has concluded that that volume doesn't warrant the platform fee that PM was charging);
- on my read another reason was their concern that shares were being traded for prices materially below their true worth. Closing the window for that reason takes cojones. You'd know that holders will whinge when you do it - but you still do it, because you fervently believe it's the right thing to do, to protect potential sellers from themselves. Now, maybe 9SP is right about that, and maybe it's not. We will see in time. But to me it evidences a willingness to do what they think is right, even if it isn't populist. And that's a very good character trait in your company's managers.
2. They're still keen to give holders liquidity options. They've spoken to that repeatedly. Not all management teams would do so. There are always many competing priorities for a company in 9SP's position, so 9SP's continued attention to that topic, when it could easily just forget about that issue for now, speaks strongly to their shareholder focus.
Re turnaround and forecast:
1. It is unfair to suggest that 9SP isn't a going concern and thus management has failed in its mission. To continue with your analogy, slowing down and redirecting a 269m boat takes time. You can't just stop it on a dime. 9SP's accounts make it plain that, yes, there is work yet to be done, but also that a whole lot of change has already been effected.
2. It is impossible to forecast the future when that future is materially dependent on multitudinous sales that have not yet occurred. In my view Kevin was quite rightly circumspect about the next 12 months. I feel he was also quietly confident that things would improve further, but why throw down specific numbers when you literally cannot?
