Absolutely fair pragmatic point Alibi. Surely common sense answer is hundreds aren't needed, just maybe 40-50. And am sure enough live within travel distance in south-east to make such number without too much difficulty. I agree and don't think it fair to expect far away peeps to expend huge sums and time when job can be done by those in south east. I don't have a Londoncentric attitude. My raising the issue was simply because if not raised nothing is learnt. My point being was that simply a few is not enough and unfair. How to sort the issue isn't difficult should it be needed again
mira - is not the point that currently there exists a salaried Bod with no skin in the game, happy with poor mood music underpromoting HUR, and little urgency - against which CA, other biggies and PIs have an opposing agenda ie wishing to raise SP value? CA is the biggest cheese doing the graft so naturally the other biggies will follow them. PIs interests thus at present align with CA + other biggies. ie in having an active, aligned BoD with skin in the game, who promote HUR properly, and make decisions in timely fashion. Purely as illustration. once bonds were paid & EPL details become clear, if CA wanted to change, CEO, CFO or Chair (some or all), it is difficult to see other biggies and PIs not supporting such a step.
I knew as soon as pressed the send button before correcting my misspelling of disappointment that some bright spark would correct it...). Seriously, being neither whinger nor dreamer, I immediately appreciate Schlemy's, Ron's & Gloucester's points, all of which I would, were HUR a 'normal' company, usually agree with. But this time I will nuance. My overriding impressions from questions & post-meeting chats are:-
1. Chair, CEO & CFO still believe no mistakes were made last year (or know but won't admit)
2. SHs (incl CA) are still viewed as irritants, & the BoD still belivee they principally call the shots.
3. CA, mindful of bond sum + cash in bank imperative by end July bond repayment time, have to date relied on well 6 problem-free performance, allied to (through gritted teeth) diplomacy & persuasion.
CA own 28%, small PI investors collectively 21% = 49%. Other large investors support CA for obvious reasons. PI sentiment was clearly reflected in AGM voting. I do not imagine for a moment that CA's true view of Chair, CEO & CFO differs from that of PIs. PIs main AGM messages of (i) lack of skin in game via shares or performance related salary (ii) inappropriate mood music (iii) lack of urgency, will correlate with CA's main messages.
I believe the time approaches when the tail will cease wagging the dog & the dog will start wagging the tail. PI's AGM protest voting & questioning will ease that changeover process as it will be harder for non CA aligned BoD members to argue against. No BoD member will be able to argue to CA....'....it's just CA who want to travel that route'.
I don't expect the BoD to bend easily to CA's future will. But the AGM will make it easier because of HUR's particular circumstances. That was PI's success. My angst was the unwarranted stress on such a small number.
Today spoke with Boo80 who attended and spoke. He puts PI attendance at 15-20, given he was first into the room a few mins ahead of the rest of us. The BoD were already seated, as were 15 or so assorted HUR, NOMAD & solicitor personnel. He opined a fight was clearly expected hence careful stage management.
Couple of ADVFN guys have explained the nigh impossibility of attending an 11am start if coming from Scotland. Wholly fair point so perhaps idea to suggest to HUR a future 2pm start? Or do company's arrange 11am starts knowing will dissuade SHs who have to travel from attending?
Were my emotions at low PI attendance at AGM. 25-30 attendees(tops), 6 of whom spoke.
The BoD were seated onstage looking worried, anticipating a difficult meeting. Their collective body language eased upon seeing the small PI number who entered. They were wrong. Hard blows were landed. Only because a handful of us quickly introduced ourselves to each other in the ante-room, and agreed to persevere and back each other up.
But the huge stress on 3-4 questioners continually pressing was grossly unfair. There is a limited timespan 3-4 questioners can legitimately pin down an elusive Chair & BoD, and how quickly 3-4 people can process and react to practiced elusive answers. Had we pressed or tried any harder, we would have entered punch-up territory.
It’s easy to post on forums & send email. Greater effort & courage needed to fix bayonets & get bloody when rare chance arises to hold a miscreant BoD to account. The first live AGM for 3 years, & first post-court hearing, was such chance. PIs KNEW it MATTERED. Whereas an unbiased Judge notes email content, PIs know that emails to HUR are ignored. Hence AGM attendance & questioning was crucial.
Those attending outperformed out of sheer necessity. This forum + ADVFN, & PIs collectively, failed. Only 50% of the required message to the BoD was delivered. Since minutes were neither taken nor published, fortunately NED Juan Morera will have reported back to CA, and certain attendees will have reported to CA by email. And NEDs have been awoken.
There are wordsmiths on both forums. Hence, certainly competent public speakers. Whilst attendance by some was impossible, this number was vastly outweighed by those who couldn’t be bothered & considered it OK to leave to others. If strong PI representation remains needed next year I won’t be attending unless pre-AGM more forumites commit to attending, and a dozen agree to meet briefly beforehand to agree a meeting strategy, and share out of questions. Life is too short. And I don't believe in letting a few fight the war of many, armed with sticks rather than bazookas. I shall copy this post to ADVFN
I have always thought Chair was a CEO approved NED & then Chair, hence voted against him pre-meeting, Having seen him run the AGM (v. badly imho) and spoken to him after el19 did (I caught part of el's conversation), i concur with el19's opinion. He is far too smooth and I now see him as much of a problem and danger as CEO & CFO. I don't mind someone telling me they cannot comment on an issue (ie there position constrains them) - I draw the line when they tell me black is white and expect me to believe they are telling the truth and their true opinion.
I have always recognised CA's goals have to understandably diverge from Pis at some point but believe currently they still run broadly parallel.
it is a not a requirement for a PI to be an oil expert as Chair opines. Main requirement is ability to see clear full picture by being able to join pieces of info together, integrity, and own mind.
By the way - PIs protest vote against certain Resolutions made noticable difference to scorecard. Those we voted for got high 90's, those we voted against got low 90's (incl Chair), and CEO 89%. We knew overall results a foregone conclusion, but scorecard mattered. It will have been noted by NEDs
An attendee asked the Chair to confirm the AGM was being minuted and that the minutes show that SHs had requested an apology from the BoD, which had been refused. He stated that unless this was done, there would exist no formal company record of an apology ever being requested, or refused. The Chair stated the AGM was not being minuted and thus no record made.
Gazelle - my lesson from 1st ever AGM is that 10 shareholders (5 is not enough) can control the meeting and give it the meaning is should have, via Q & A session which, if enough different VALID questions from different SHs. Faced with such, the Chair does not have the power to 'close' the meeting. All that is needed to ensure a 90 minute Q & A session is small degree of planning. And certain questions directed to NEDs according to their area of expertise. For example, we should have asked both oil NEDs for their views on CPR1 & CPR 2 divergence, on likely accurate resource reserves, and value of wholly new 3rd CPR
I spoke with Chair. CEO & CFO - will post content as time permits. Others did also. Also one of us had long chat with oil NED David Craik I believe interesting re his view re CR1 & CPR2 (since updated) variance. Please can all post details when as time permits? Am sure be welcomed by all
Curious - immediately Chair declared meeting closed man approached me & introduced himself as (name forgotten) from Stifel, stating reason no apology would be given is that such would leave company and board liable. I said was nonsense - all needed was careful wording. He persisted. Anxious to speak with Chair before he left my manners failed. I said no point discussing as we rowed different row boats and he walked away. I regret not engaging with him. But am still nonplussed. Why would Stifel guy approach me (or anyone) in such manner? Anyone any ideas?
el19 (Paul) is LTSH who spoke at length at both court hearings & emailed judge- re tech,oil, fiinances, like dog with bone. spoke same at AGM + had long shat with Chair. had to then depart but said he reads all but posts little. am sure forum would welcome & appreciate his AGM feedback. i hope he is so minded.
We made strategic AGM errors, easily rectifiable for future. They are (+ will be others made):-
1. '10 FOREMOST SH QUESTIONS' emails should have been copied to NEDs. Instinct says unlikely have been given copy by comms, CEO, CFO or Chair. Better understanding of AGM SH angst if had seen. Better understanding how 'Presentation' did NOT answer most questions, despite SHs being told they would. NEDs better equipped to hold Chair, CEO & CFO to account at board meetings. Am sure some NEDs (for lack of info) still don't get how bad chief execs are.
2. Attending SH's (need 10 prepared to ask questions) need hold pub meeting NIGHT BEFORE AGM (if in morning), or MORNING pub meeting if AGM is pm. Small prep to get organised = great benefit. Questions can be allocated to each, pre-meeting and 'backing up' need locked into mindsets.
3. We should have asked Chair at commencement if NEDs had received copy of SHs 10 foremost question list. If answer negative, floor could have given copies to NEDs. NEDs would have been surprised to learn comms/Chair/CEO/ CFO had NOT given them prior copies
4. We could and should have then asked questions in strict email running order (ie run our agenda), rather than dip in and out of various questions as we did
5. We would then have been better minded and prepared with 'killer question(s)' eg 'Shares/skin in game - in 2021, If CEO & CFO had held £100K shares each. and NED's £30K shares each, would the restructuring plan have ever seen the light of day, given that all BoD would have lost 95% of shareholdings value?' The truthful answer we know would have been 'No'. The answers given would have been comical. I am peed off we missed that question.
Permission letters from brokers WERE needed (and kept by policing desk) + doors to meeting room opened ony 5 mins before KO with BoD already sat or platform. Normal or me being hyper - anyone with EGMS experience?
Juan Morera only NED who raised hand & spoke - stated CA not in business or owning or running oil companies - when BOO haranged CEO & CFO with (I quote)...' the pair of you are useless. you tried to give the company away last year and you are still at it now. you sit there smirking at us as if we were fools or scum. if you still aren't prepared to do what is best for the company, you should get lost and let CA take over and run the company'.
Apology to dflynch (flynchy) who attended, fired questions and came to pub. I knew my brain is frazzled. Boo had to rush off to pick up kids, we have since spoken by phone. Boo let loose a good few words of French at CEO & CFO (& Chair) - had to be tied down at one point
Having survived on 3-4 hrs sleep last few nights, I am about to lie down in a dark room for a few hours and won't be posting anything until exhaustion leaves me and some juice returns. Sorry, it's that or cry. A short precis is:-
AGM lasted 11 - 12.45
'Presentation' lasted 20 mins. 2 of 10 questions were addressed - P8 (new well),and (to some extent) the 'Plan'. Rest were ignored.
Attendance - lowish - but am told normal- the crowded town hall it was not
Having introd each other beforehand, half a dozen PIs fired question list as separate questions at Chair
Chair tried protect CEO & CFO from questions, tried wind up questions, failed. PIs returned with same questions and points. The Q & A was LONG,& UNCOMFORTABLE for BoD. No prisoners were taken
NEDS nodding along sagely with many PI points.
Main points gotten across
(i) lack of BoD alignment with SH interests/skin in game - made in spades, acknowledged by Chair, and promise to actively address
(ii) persistent poor mood music - espec persistent well 6 finished by Dec 23
(iii) lack of faith & confidence in CEO & CFO - Chair acknowledges point made
Platform was NOT a happy platform - serious earwigging - a few more attendees and questioners would have been serious fun time. But seriously peed off message WAS sent & RECEIVED - no doubt at all.
Meeting end - peeps split to speak with one BoD member apiece before they disappeared (were anxious - an upstairs BoD meeting?)
5 of us retired to nearby Clarence to compare notes - consensus - decent job done, espec main message
Hats off to DYOR2, Picsmaister, Boo80, cashburner, el19(Paul who spoke at both court hearings) + 2-3 others who disappeared before I could catch forum names who fired questions and did not give up when fobbed off
DYOR2, Pics, Boo, casburner and I were in pub. expect all to post thoughts when recovered and so minded, plus el19
Other unnamed attendees please post views when recovered and minded
Since no else has, and peeps need to know. I formally declare The Clarence pub, 4 Dover SE W1S 4LB, 2-3mins from meeting, as place where peeps who wish to may meet either before or after AGM. I intend to call in after the AGM.
But please do not forget to stay and speak with Bod after meeting before heading to pub if one is minded! Also, to arrive at meeting early to get a feel for place and talk to other SHs before kick off may be a good idea
Can't make Clarence pre meeting. But if want speak by phone before you set off this morning, or to arrange meet outside meeting place before meeting, message my backup email and i will email my phone email@example.com
someone good HL corporate pulled out all the stops and i now have required letter - most surprised
but i have it on good authority from past attendee 2 agms that entry not policed and that in 2 years they were neither asked for nor had to produce a letter, just walked in. anyone going without required letter i would take print evidence of current holding and give it a whirl with that if approached. if that dont work ask mr official to get ok from hur comms sec or chair inside building - how can they refuse?
there are 2 specifics i don't expect to be dealt with in presentation which i think crucial to both confidence & SP - one in 10 question list, one isn't. namely
1. alignment with SHs/skin in game (in list). - either CEO & CFO buy shares, or BoD with CA agreement agree reasonable performance related option package - so that chief execs have skin in game to influence positive decision making and industry sees this.
2. set aside BoD outdated RNS's position well 6 end of commercial life Dec 23 (not in list). cited and relied upon by all industry writers. state good till end 24 or even end 25 as per ca calcs. what company is going to buy HUR if well 6 economic production will end in 18 months time?
These 2 questions MUST be asked from floor if not addressed. All attendees please lock into brain cell and back up those who ask these questions.