aquinian“That's odd. My feeling is that we are a remarkably open...

aquinian

“That's odd. My feeling is that we are a remarkably open company.”

So why is there so much disquiet amongst the owners? You just saying “that we are a remarkably open company” doesn’t make it so … it’s just the blinkered opinion of someone behind the veil. It’s those owners who are outside the veil & suffering the erosion of their investment that are saying the opposite.


“Performance criteria? I don't know what Simon's particular KPIs are, but I expect they are the usual ones, such as EBITDA, sales growth, net asset growth, etc. You know, all those numbers which almost every year have improved dramatically.”

“I don't know what Simon's particular KPIs are” …… just like everyone else bar SE & cousin Cousins

“but I expect they are the usual ones, such as EBITDA, sales growth, net asset growth, etc. You know, all those numbers which almost every year have improved dramatically.”

You “expect” …. lol …. That’s the point!! Every shareholder ‘expects’ and has a right to “know” what hurdles have been set that will trigger further cost TO THEM. EFT management seems to suffer from the same delusion, as many public listed co’s do, that shareholders are just there to be eternally grateful to those (superior beings) running THEIR company. To silently suffer while the wheels fall off and at the same time rewarding non performance etc etc etc….
Those attitudes are what have got the world financial market to this current point.
Wake up Mr John Lane – EFTel Staffer ….for the times they are a-changing, and you better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone.
If the KPI’s are so standard ….. why the problem with publishing them ???


Either your paranoia knows no bounds …or your defense against any questioning (see above) is to raise doubts through innuendo about the identity and motive of those asking the questions.

“Nor is this a secret to you, Greg, and your party, since you were on the board when the decision was made to do this, and you approved of it.”

I am not a Greg, have never been on the board of EFTel nor worked for EFTel or even been a customer or supplier of or to EFTel. I have, however, been an owner (shareholder) of EFTel in the past (is that grounds enough to disqualify me from having an opinion?)
The only part of your innuendo that is correct is that I DO have a good knowledge of Malaysia having been involved in an IT venture at the then just opened Cyber Jaya.


“The boom in WA was resources-based. The telco sector has been in a bear market for years.”
The cream will always rise to the top & taking comfort in comparing yourself to other ‘losers’ is simply further demonstration of the lack of drive, direction and innovation demonstrated, ad nausium, by EFTel management.

You are derogatory about iiNet ‘buying’ customers, but conveniently forget to acknowledge that EFTel’s very beginning was the result of the amalgamation of a lot of small Perth ISP’s … many of whom are the very people complaining the loudest about how the company is being run, because their now find themselves without their original business, without an income & without the liquidity to exit even if they wanted to …. and that any growth in EFTel’s customer base since has been largely due to further acquisitions.
Further, you cite a customer base of 100,000 …..but wasn’t it being claimed at 120,000 odd a few years back ??? So where is the ‘organic growth’ in that?

Granted, the boom has been generated from the mining industry, but the trickle down effect has reached every corner of the WA economy (except the telco sector apparently).
If a company has failed to flourish in the economic environment of the past 5-6 years then whose fault is it?
Clearly if the current business model has failed to reap the benefit of a generational boom, the model is defective & competent management would have identified this ages ago and reactively rejigged the model to the climate (brilliant management would have been proactive)
Clearly EFTel management is neither and it begs the question that if the company’s performance has been so ‘average’ in the most favourable economic climate of a generation, what will lesser (harder) economic times hold for EFTel.


Further to your 5 points:

a) What has been the customer base numbers for each of the past 3 years
b) Which are?
c) “Generating cash” or “operating profit” is not the same as making a bottom line profit …. Anyone can sell things at a loss & “generate cash” …. But for how long! Just as a business that makes a margin on sales (ie an operating profit) but not a big enough margin to cover ALL the costs of running the business will similarly ultimately fail
d) It could be argued that the payment of a dividend against the background of an ongoing shareholder revolt is both cynical and opportunistic, but at the very least foolish given the company’s scarcity of cash, the current state of the financial market and the much heralded infrastructure rollout being undertaken.
e) What sort of nebulous statement is that? Low debt as compared to what? …. Turnover, operating profit, bottom line profit or the old standby of compared to other loser companies !!!!

NEWS FLASH …… “blue sky” is NOT on the nose. Blue sky is what every investor (& dynamic company) is looking for. What is on the nose is management that used “blue sky” as a marketing tool rather than a business direction tool.
EFTel’s now stated disdain for “blue sky” is simply code for more of the same non-creative, uninspirational direction.


Finally I note that you have avoided answering any of the questions posed in the previous post.
I am particularly interested in the contention that “Mr. Bretherton's proposal would actually insulate Mr. Ehrenfeld from shareholders...”,

Do you disagree that should SE be removed from the board, it would make his position as CEO untenable ie his removal from the board would be a vote of no confidence in him?