Our latest episode of the Investing Matters Podcast, featuring Janet Mui, award-winning investment industry commentator, has just been released. Listen here.
Lovely to hear so many reasonable men having a good belly laugh all at the same time...)
Quite correct, Jiffy, similar DNA, and fartybottoms last post was only late Dec 21, then 'disappeared'
If I remember correctly, we killed fartybottom with laughter - he literally went mad with the constant sound of laughter and ridicule ringing in his ears.
I'll bet the farm a certain poster won't attend next years AGM - whatever the date, it will clash with spaceship's take off date to be the next man on the moon
Having extended a certain poster many spurned chances, I suggest a similar tactic is adopted
'EPL details announced soon - so clarity for CA to make decisions.' From senseman post Fri 16.19
It was clear to all reasonable men (littlened, canetois, Tiger, Jimmy) that the innocuous meaning of the comment was that upon EPL details being announced, 28% SH CA would then be able to decide their view of the best way forward for HUR and, via their BoD NED & normal informal communications with senior execs, legally, properly and reasonably communicate that view to the BoD in order that the BoD may properly take it's 28% SH's view into account and accord that view the appropriate weight when arriving at decisions.
A certain poster preposterously stated, inter alia, that my innocuous comment was an assertion that CA itself makes HUR decisions, rather than the BoD. And thus my comment is an allegation of impropriety again CA, for which I have been reported to CA. senseman accusing CA of impropriety - good luck with that one! The poster's interpretation and actions have angered numerous others
The question arises as to how the said poster's understanding of the comment can differ so markedly from that of reasonable men. Or whether the exercise is one of mischief making. Since one does not wish to see the thread pulled, I make no comment but leave others to decide for themselves. I urge caution in any written comment
Patience & quiet calm - little sleep time:-
EPL details announced soon - so clarity for CA to make decision
Mid Aug monthly update - bonds paid & cash in bank announced
Oil more likely to rise than fall
warren buffet buys more oily shares
I concur with others that even if recession, exceptional circs (investment supply crunch, russia issues) will protect oil price. Immediate grumble for us is lowish oil price average 1st 5 days July as this sets ceiling for price received for July offload.
el19 writes cogently re feasibility of HUR (with competent BoD) organically returning to old SP levels. Have always thought that possible. Intractable square the circle problem we & CA been landed with is CA wind-up necessity forcing them into limited-time actions they cannot reasonably be criticized for. Whereas it's possible CA's end game may provide PIs with best of both worlds (high CA end-game SP + still existing (in some form) organically growing company) the chances of Pis being so lucky as to have cake and eat it aren't huge. But we are where we are. Remember CA have been in HUR for 10 years - much longer than they envisaged - and will be hyper about single well dependency & SP crash damage if problems occur before they exit. I think bonds gone and EPL clarity will see action, covert or overt, from CA - they don't do drift
Half of the popular 'Fishy' thread was pulled recently - the latter half celebrating the improved free flow of opinion, speculation & banter during a poster’s recent too brief absence. So 'someone' is still at it. I opined a while back that smart posters with hidden agendas play the long game and choose their moments. Thus was unsurprised when we were lectured on how discussing AGM voting intentions broke UK privacy/ freedom of speech laws (utter twaddle) and the discussion thread was pulled (before being restored by apologetic moderator). I was also unsurprised when a certain poster was pparently ‘abroad’ for 2-3 days at busy AGM time, hence could neither attend AGM nor post.
The forum seems to have figured the best way to deal with said poster. By limiting itself to poking fun and not engaging in argument or discussion even when the poster posts occasional sensible comment I believe is designed to lower others’ guard and so enable said poster to maintain engagement.
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.