AVZ (ASX) Running discussion on SP

Originally posted by setfire2thehive: ↑

Hi JB1975,

Thanks for the response. You are correct that I haven't cited specific announcements for each item. But I made mention that the due dates on all the items are as per the last quarterly release. I think this is about as clear as one can be without posting a link to their own announcement only 12 days old. I think that would appear a little facetious.

As the quarterly adjusted the dates of several items the remaining it made no mention of, so I've went off the last company announcements. (Note that the quarterly amended most dates, and left blank the others. So despite what was mentioned in previous announcements, it says a lot about the integrity of those original due dates.)

I'm not writing a published journal so until the lines of comms are opened I'm not putting in extensive efforts. Furthermore as board members they should have a complete and clear idea about exactly when everything is or was due. If they aren't able to rattle that off then there's an issue in itself. If they'd like to correct my dates, that's 3-5mins of work.

I'm mindful to not get caught up in a debate about word definition; due, expected, presumed, should, shall, whilst all hold differential terms in Law all provide the same meaning to the market. That being the information/announcement is late. Don't even mention April if it's got a possibility of May. If it's expected April, but we're in May then it has missed mine, theirs and the markets expectation. i.e. Negative inpact/sentiment.

To be clear the intention of my email to management is to;
1) Create an overwhelming reality check about the inherently poor adherence to schedule and forecast
2) Push topics of contentious relevance to try and increase the detail in further reports.
3) Politely pester management with intention to have them hold themselves more accountable.

In my original email I clearly stated that most of which I have requested would need to be answered via formal announcement. I'm also not expecting a 100 page response answering each query. TBH it takes 2 minutes to respond and say; we've received your email and appreciate your feedback. Whilst most of the point cannot be answered in the short term, we will endeavour to address these in upcoming announcements. We can also arrange a 10 minute discussion to curb any other concerns you may have.

I'm not asking them to do anymore work than they already stated they have or should have done.

SF2TH

Expand

"until the lines of comms are opened I'm not putting in extensive efforts".

If I was Nigel (and I'm not - I've never spoken to him) I'd be willing and wanting to reply to your email (because of the amount of work in it and the support it has) but not publicly (I'd want to make a phone call where I could check I was answering the questions you personally had) because of the extra time I'd have to take to deal with all the nuance in a written public response.

Personally I have no problem with open letters - but they are inherently political forms of communication, let's be honest about that.

If what one wants is answers - straight questions, respectfully put without interspersed arguments
and without an audience is most likely to get those straight answers.

I don't believe Nigel could answer some of your questions - about Huayou for instance in a public forum without being extremely guarded - and as a shareholder I probably wouldn't want him to.

If one wants accountability for the answers then something in writing or an audience or witnesses are required. But of course the person being asked to communicate in that situation is also going to be more wary and careful about making mistakes and getting themselves into trouble.

I believe you are in good faith. I like a lot of your questions and share a lot of your concerns. But I don't think Nigel can answer you publicly without having to take a lot of time to do it because he'd be wary (if he is sensible) of all the problems he'd create for himself if he was responding to you like you were the ASX asking him to please explain. He might carve out parts of your post he can answer publicly safely but then how that looks also becomes a judgement call.

Just my opinion. I certainly don't want to stand between Nigel and a mob ;-)