Member Info for Straycat

Morning ss,

The Market can only work with the available information.

In our case that amounts to a string of RNSs relating to production plan delays, the need for FPD resubmissions due to initial rejections, and the mysterious, unexplained departure of the CFO.

Problem? What problem?

The dividend initiative and the buyback plan feel like they’re more defensive than offensive to me.

I guess the Markets will wait for now until there’s more certainty about the future.

Apologies for part posting the information twice...I'll try again.

The wholly unreliable voting results of the Straw Poll are in for the first day and read as follows as at 5.00pm:
FULL CONFIDENCE - 6;
NO CONFIDENCE -9;
DON’T KNOW -3;
OTHER ( DYSFUNCTIONAL ) -2.

So what?

First of all it is important to treat any interpretation of these initial voting patterns with real caution given the way the vote has been compiled, and its consequent innate weaknesses.

But on the back of these findings we can at least posit that:
1) There is a credibility issue for JF on this BB given that there are more votes of NO CONFIDENCE than there are of FULL CONFIDENCE;
2) Furthermore there is a notable level of ambivalence regarding his suitability for the job given the DON’T KNOW count;
3) And it’s reasonable to conclude that anyone voting DYSFUNCTIONAL is not exactly praising JF from the rooftops;
4) The silent majority may be speaking.

At any rate it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of his period of tenure.

Why does it matter?

This Straw Poll (with all its flaws) attempts to address the issue of bulletin board confidence in the CEO of a $250m+ business with plans to triple in size over the next three to four years.

And according to its findings, he is found wanting.

I’d like to thank everyone who’s already taken the trouble to take part in the Poll. I’ve no doubt that as it becomes yesterday’s news (literally) then any attention aroused will dissipate just as quickly.

And as expected the early results pose many more questions than they answer, which is in itself worrying because this guy is in notional control of all our GKP financial futures through his management skills.

However the answer is not to quit the share out of hand, as has been suggested.

Rather we should be pressing for a change in attitude and approach. Simply communicating developments succinctly and contextually with appropriate explanations as required would be a great start.

And if that proves too difficult for him then we should even consider a change in personnel at the top, imo.

This homemade exercise in collating opinion is too unreliable for extrapolating that new approach outlined above.

But the Poll clearly points to perceived leadership deficiencies in JF.

The wholly unreliable voting results of the Straw Poll are in for the first day and read as follows as at 5.00pm:

FULL CONFIDENCE - 6;
NO CONFIDENCE -9;
DON’T KNOW -3;
OTHER ( DYSFUNCTIONAL ) -2.

So what?

First of all it is important to treat any interpretation of these initial voting patterns with real caution given the way the vote has been compiled, and its consequent innate weaknesses.

But on the back of these findings we can at least posit that:
1) There is a credibility issue for JF on this BB given that there are more votes of NO CONFIDENCE than there are of FULL CONFIDENCE;
2) Furthermore there is a notable level of ambivalence regarding his suitability for the job given the DON’T KNOW count;
3) And it’s reasonable to conclude that anyone voting DYSFUNCTIONAL is not exactly praising JF from the rooftops;
4) The silent majority may be speaking.

At any rate it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of his period of tenure.

Why does it matter?

This Straw Poll (with all its flaws) attempts to address the issue of bulletin board confidence in the CEO of a $250m+ business with plans to triple in size over the next three to four years.

And according to its findings, he is found wanting.

I’d like to thank everyone who’s already taken the trouble to take part in the Poll. I’ve no doubt that as it becomes yesterday’s news (literally) then any attention aroused will dissipate just as quickly.

And as expected the early results pose many more questions than they answer, which is in itself worrying because this guy is in notional control of all our GKP financial futures through his management skills.

However the answer is not to quit the share out of hand, as has been suggested.

Rather we should be pressing for a change in attitude and approach. Simply communicating developments succinctly and contextually with appropriate explanations as required would be a great start.

And if that proves too difficult for him then we should even consider a change in personnel at the top, imo.

This homemade exercise in collating opinion is too unreliable for extrapolating that new approach outlined above.

But the Poll clearly points to perceived leadership deficiencies in JF.


The wholly unreliable voting results of the Straw Poll are in for the first day and read as follows as at 5.00pm:
FULL CONFIDENCE - 6;
NO CONFIDENCE -9;
DON’T KNOW -3;
OTHER ( DYSFUNCTIONAL ) -2.

So what?

First of all it is important to treat any interpretation of these initial voting patterns with real caution given the way the vote has been compiled, and its consequent innate weaknesses.

But on the back of these findings we can at least posit that:
1) There is a credibility issue for JF on this BB given that there are more votes of NO CONFIDENCE than there are of FULL CONFIDENCE;
2) Furthermore there is a notable level of ambivalence regarding his suitability for the job given the DON’T KNOW count;
3) And

.....whatever that is.

Hi CCC.,

True enough.

He's certainly doing the right thing for those voting at the AGM.....

ss,

Please don’t think I was offended in any way by your post because I wasn’t.

But my opinion of JF leads directly to a discussion as to his competence to take us through the next development phase.

Obviously I don’t think he can, but that doesn’t make me right.

The Straw Poll is a way to try and gauge BB opinion on the matter, nothing more and nothing less.

Because I didn’t invest in JF but I did invest in GKP’s potential and I don’t believe he can fulfill it.
And true believers will look for change rather than the exit.

Absolutely no offence taken ss.

DON'T KNOW.

GO.

STAY.

TO ALL BOARD PARTICIPANTS.

Yesterday I expressed my opinion on GKP Board reticence to share with us the reasons for their decision making when possible. While not wishing to rehash the discussion, my point was that a more open, inclusive approach to PIs would go a long way toward dispelling any mistrust that exists between us and the Board.

Anyway, surreyscot quickly morphed the debate into one of confidence in the Board. Specifically his view was as follows:

‘the solution is obvious, if you don’t have confidence in the management, then don’t hold the shares. I certainly wouldn’t, and have sold shares in other company’s in the past for that very reason.’

And this got me thinking about how best to challenge this like it or lump it, shut up or f*ck off approach to share dealing and share selection.

And this is what I’ve come up with.

Following shortly after this post will be three further posts:

Post one will have the one word STAY specified;
Post two will have the one word GO specified ;
Post three will have the two words DON’T KNOW specified.

By clicking the recommend button on the STAY post you are expressing your FULL CONFIDENCE in Jon Ferrier to continue in his work as CEO of GKP.

By clicking the recommend button on the GO post you are expressing NO CONFIDENCE in Jon Ferrier to continue his work as CEO of GKP.

By clicking the recommend button on the DON’T KNOW Post you are expressing AMBIVALENCE as to whether he should stay or go.

The ambition here is to take BB soundings on PI confidence levels in the current CEO. The binary nature of the poll is simply an attempt to provide unambiguous clarity to the BB view.

And let’s be clear.

It’s not scientific in any way.
It’s clearly and completely open to misuse and abuse.
So it has no sense of any authority whatsoever.
MOST IMPORTANTLY IT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN ANY WAY AS AN OPINION FORMER because of the above.

In this Poll your opinion carries the same weight as that of everyone else. All this Poll does is to tot up the sum of those opinions, and as I say, the methodology is wholly flawed and open to mass abuse.
Nevertheless it might be interesting to see what it throws up.

And on a technical note I have no idea what the maximum number of ‘recommends’ per post is, and that could screw up the results. More likely though, the response levels will be so minimal as not to trouble LSE limits at all!!

This is simply the crudest of crude straw polls to try and establish the collective view of shareholders on the question at hand. It might also enable the more reserved readers of this Board to participate in debate in an anonymous way.

After all, this purports to be an interactive board, so let’s interact.

I have no idea as to the outcomes, but whatever they are, it could be very interesting.

Mikey,

And your Genel post?

Mikey,

Why have you engaged in a discussion with me regarding Genel?

I've never mentioned them!?!

Mikey,

So they did start the buy back immediately....

Mikey,

That’s interesting....the RNS stipulated that the buyback programme was to start immediately.

Ss,

The first part of your post is a text book analysis and argument for treasury placement of repurchased shares over simple cancellation.

Namely flexibility.

Unfortunately it does nothing to address the point in question:

Why did the Board choose to place the repurchased shares in treasury having announced the buyback plan?

You haven’t answered that question. Neither could I this morning. All we could do was suppose what might have been the reason(s).

And that’s because the Board chose not to give us the reason(s). They have left us in the dark with only conjecture to light the way.

And I’m asking why would they do that? What is it with this Board and opaqueness? What is wrong with an approach which embraces openness and transparency?

Aren’t you interested in their reasons for the route they’ve chosen to use our money? Don’t you think, as shareholders, it would help our understanding of their underlying motives and tactical planning?

This style of management by subterfuge and obfuscation, wordplay and slippery language is not to my liking and in my world has always been associated with weakness and frailty. Of plots and plans, of information management by people afraid of critical exposure.

Is that what we’re paying JF for?

Give me a break ss.

As for your advice on what to do if we don’t like it, obviously that’s one option. But only one.

And if you believe in GKP and its potential it would be the wrong one.

Thanks for the advice though.

Flyinghorse1,

I get that, but if they were only concerned about the undervalued sp then they would have stated their intention to simply retire any repurchased shares wouldn’t they?

Not just tuck them away for safekeeping, or for some unspecified future event/purpose.

When RRE set up their 20% share buyback share offer they specified their concerns about market undervaluation as the reason for their pro-action.

And then retired the shares.

And that lack of transparency in GKP inevitably leads to mistrust.

Thanks for that ss, but what is their purpose on this occasion?

Employee share options?
Further shareholder value enhancement over and above the dividend plan?
Tax?
Defence against hostile attack?
Other?

I don’t know, but they might have mentioned what was on their mind.

You know, their reasoning and such…..it’s not a big ask if they’re being transparent.

But they’re not.

Shares to be held in Treasury eh?

Why?

CCC.,

I had a very healthy debate with Indrid earlier this year regarding the benefits (or otherwise) of share buyback as a tool to stimulate an undervalued sp. And as I recall you took her position at that time.

So what? Good for you!

Indrid, you, we all have every right to express our opinions on this BB and particularly when it’s done in an objective, rational way, as you have. It’s precisely what this bb is for!

What’s not so appealing is to read the abusive responses, or arrogant assertions that are regularly posted without regard to any other view and rudely dismissive of any opposition.

The problem with this bb, and its more wearingly depressing Sister, is that they has been populated for too long by posters who are so angry and bitter that they cannot look objectively at what’s happening anymore. They simply don’t have that capacity.
But in my limited experience this is slowly changing; the posts are less personally aggressive here (with notable exceptions); posters are less intimidated by the posting style of the Board, which is changing; and finally other interested investors are reading and posting albeit in trepidation.

On the content of your post I would comment as follows:

1) The share buyback policy has now been adopted. You know my view on that. The more pressing issue is why now?;
2) The production plan delays are massively frustrating and are clearly a sp suppressant;
3) You’re right, the MNR refusal to ratify the FPD is worrying and I reckon we’re owed more detail as to the reasons for this, and more importantly, how May’s resubmission addresses those MNR concerns;
4) The new CPR will happen eventually and I’m not aware of any potential problems there, is anyone else?;
5) Your query re the PSC needs dealing with by the Board as you suggest;
6) Yes, what the hell happened to Sami? I think the answer to that question would be VERY revealing….and that’s why I don’t think we’ll get it unless he goes public which is unlikely given the terms of his departure.

No, there’s nothing negative in your post CCC and the fact that you’ve reinvested your dividend is yet more proof of your belief in your judgment as to GKP’s future.

Great post CCC and, by the way, I regard your posts on regional geopoliticai developments both here and elsewhere as very informative and helpful.

Not my asterisks!!!!!!