The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Sorry!
I don't understand your comments. I've tried to get hold of Simon Humphrey but he does not return phone calls. I believe it is legitimate to ask these questions and I don't think the format matters too much. I appreciate Gerry Brandon's involvement on this site, also that it is much more than most chairman would do and applaud that. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask these questions given that so much disappointment has happened - I just want to understand the situation as best I can. I don't believe there is a list of topics that can and cannot be asked on such chat sites. It may be more appropriate to air at the AGM but I hope it does not come to that. I'm just puzzled (and antennae are up) because of so little attempt to explain the past. I would like it aired, out of the way and move on to better things.
I do now also have a concern that the membrane division is not considered important. I would like to understand the thinking there a lot better. Most of my investments are in private companies - maybe that explains the difference in approach - where I can ask pretty well what I like - in some cases I am expected to.
Very little, that is not my concern. I want the right person to lead this company and want a discussion as to who that is - perfectly happy for Simon Humphrey to be that person provided he can demonstrate it and persuade shareholders. Ignoring them is not the way forward.
Gjbrandon,
Thanks for your response. I think on reflection, there are a few points to make:
1. You said that all the old board had gone. Was Simon Humprey not previously on the board as CEO?
2. Simon Humprey doesn't; seem to want to return phone calls. Could you please ask him to come on here. I think it would do a world of good for him to address some of these issues from the past and for him to put in his own words what went wrong and why that won't happen again. I think in terms of shareholder relations and investor confidence, it would do a world of good for a tiny amount of time. I'm sure most people will want to listen to him and discuss a few points in an intelligent way.
3. I must take issue with the idea that chasing things like Gibraltar is a big boys' game. I've been involved with a business that was smaller in revenue than MWG, probably employees also, yet beat a major multi-national to a contract worth 20 times their annual revenue and with good repeat potential as well. They did this through superior technology and superior responsiveness - a serious weakness of most major businesses. I would have thought there was a lot to play for in Gibraltar. Are you saying that that side of the business is of no or little interest?
For the sake of boring everyone, I want to stress again that we have trebled our shares recently. We believe in MWG's future. However, there is a big gap in credibility and I think Simon Humprey could go a long way to filling that gap without it taking much of his time.
GjBrandon, could you please clarify a few things from your excellent post:
1. Did the Gibraltar cancellation cause the subsidiary liquidation or was it because of the liquidation?
2. What is happening in Gibraltar now to satisfy their water requirements? The point I am trying to get at is, is there any chance of reviving this contract or making anything of the disaster that happened?
3. Do you see MWG's distribution strength in monitoring as a one-off thing or is there a lasting value to it? In other words, can it be developed and improved over the coming years? Will it become a greater asset in the way any well run distribution business can grow?
4. Sorry to go on about an old chestnut, but I (along with many others judging by such share chats) just don't understand the rationale for continuing with the current executive team. You say the monitoring division is the real area of strength and interest yet they were hell-bent on disposing of it last year - this was their main recovery strategy. Yet, I assume, no buyers could be found. I'm not saying get rid of them, but I would like to see an argument for their retention. What is it that they have that is so unique? What are their strengths that, seemingly, overcome their weaknesses? This is not personal. I would love them to be successful but I just need to understand what they bring to table that makes them the team for MWG.
I chose my posting name precisely because it is correct - I am a believer and have been so for three years, building up what for me is a substantial holding. The chink is the mailcoat is the executive team. I just need to understand why they are still in place and am open to all those reasons!
They also don't reply to phone messages, strange attitude.
I agree. Let the executive team speak up and justify their continued involvement or else they should resign and the non-execs find good replacements. I think that is a fundamental job of the chairman.
Which directors are standing for re-election at the next AGM? Surely that will be the opportunity to make changes. I don't understand why the CEO does not post occasionally on here to reassure investors. He did not reply to my phone message which is always a bad sign and silence from him, total silence. I hate to say it but I think he is probably riding this for as long as he can last with a decent salary while MWG moves backwards yet again while the rest of the water world is moving resolutely forwards. I'd like to see some strategy detailed by the CEO and I don't think it is reasonable to expect it after so much has gone wrong.
I'm a huge fan of the technology MWG has but cannot understand the lack of news also, whether on sales, development or the annual results.
Glad you got back in at a reasonable price. I think this is one that will grow very well over the long term.
I'm sure MWG are talking to Anglian Water, must be talking to all the water companies. This would seem to be an ideal opportunity.
I agree on Gerard's vision and on the potential for MWG.
I know nothing about football but do know that every team has a captain. Who was the captain during the period where strikers and defence were not co-ordinating and is that same person still in place?
I'm asking because I want to understand the analogy and make a point about leadership. I'm not saying fire anybody (you would probably not listen anyway!), just asking whether you are sure you have the right people running the show every day of the week. No judgement but the question should be asked and certainly should be answered.
Thanks for the reply. I don't disagree with most of it but think you are being a little pedantic as to who reports to who. There is a chain from shareholders to board to executive but the goal remains, I believe, to increase shareholder wealth over the long term. Hence there is responsibility on the executive. I want to hear more from them as to their capability to carry out the necessary tasks and I don't think that is too much to expect when there has been so much disappointment. That said, I've increased our shareholding this year from half a million to 1.5 million and would buy more if the bank account could stand it. I like the technology, always have done, but need (along, I suspect, with many other shareholders) to hear more from the executive team. I applaud your decision to be open on this discussion group and I don't doubt the strategy. I just want to be as sure as I can be that the right people are running the show today and every day.
Given the level of doubt amongst shareholders over the executive management's capability to turn the company around, would it not be a good idea to hear from the CEO and the Board directly regarding the qualities they perceive they have and the application of those qualities to the turnaround and the new strategy of the company so eloquently put on numerous occasions by Mr Brandon. Then, come the next general meeting, we can vote on whether they retain their positions or new people come in to bring the strategy about. I'm all for giving them a chance if they can put in writing why they should be trusted with the responsibility. We've increased our stake threefold in recent months. I believe in the technology but need to hear from the people tasked with carrying out the strategy on an everyday basis. If I don't hear more from them (it is not acceptable, in my view, to ignore phone messages, Mr Humphrey), I will certainly vote against the executive directors each and every time I am able. If I do hear from them (and if Mr Humphrey changes his mind and calls me back), I am very open to persuasion that they are the right people. To me it's as simple as that.