BLT - Blis Technologies

[ohpark0119]

There has to be some correlation between renumeration and performance. Paying directors in anticipation of good results is not the way to go. Too many N Z companies have very poor performing and over rewarded directors. I do not know what it is like in other countries say USA for example but I suspect that non performing directors would be quickly removed. Not the case in NZ . I am sure Sharetaders could name a number of companies that have collapsed because of dishonest and incompetent board of directors and incompetent CEOs Or CFOs

Bliss has Very good product I use it myself. Unfortunately I have no confidence in the management . I sold my shares a few weeks ago. I will buy back in again if I see a change in performance.

Agreed. Pay rise on speculation? Maybe at fuji xerox but not here.

[emearg]

They should rebrand as Blis Probiotics. Blis Technologies means zip. Keep the company name by all means but as far as marketing/branding goes they need to be more relevant/meaningful.

Oh I just noticed their new products have Blis Probiotics in the top left with the dots around part of Blis. Same design but that key additional word. Good stuff.

[suse]

With that level of increase do you think they are considering adding another director. It really depends on how much of an increase they are proposing for each individual director.

I would have liked to have gone to the AGM this year but am overseas. I'd certainly like to hear some more as to why they didnt achieve a profit last year. I was reading an article about the Daigou??? and how ATM do well because their products are often being sold that way and Bellamys? (sorry memory like a sieve) tried to do more of a push towards direct marketing in china and cutting out the Daigou? Bellamys share price plummetted. Is it a coincidence that a couple of major asian shareholders reduced their holdings at the same time that orders were reassessed? Just some thoughts!

edit:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11884911
found the article!

[Joshuatree]

Read about the Science of Blis.

[simla]

I would be interested in the views of other holders on this resolution.

As it happens, Arvida just released a commissioned report on their director fees. https://www.nzx.com/companies/ARV/announcements/303567

On that basis, BLT underpays. But then those figures relate to large concerns turning out regular profits, although BLT is a listed company which should perhaps gain some allowance as well.

I don't begrudge them more money, but some might think it gauche to take a pay rise before they have even turned out their first million dollar full year profit, or any profit even.

On the other hand, the rise takes effect in six months, so maybe they have some very good news to share with us before then?

[ohpark0119]

As it happens, Arvida just released a commissioned report on their director fees. https://www.nzx.com/companies/ARV/announcements/303567

On that basis, BLT underpays. But then those figures relate to large concerns turning out regular profits, although BLT is a listed company which should perhaps gain some allowance as well.

I don't begrudge them more money, but some might think it gauche to take a pay rise before they have even turned out their first million dollar full year profit, or any profit even.

On the other hand, the rise takes effect in six months, so maybe they have some very good news to share with us before then?

If i hear some good news before agm then yes. If not, maybe? Can i vote online via linkmarket or have to attend the agm?

[simla]

As I understand it, you can only either attend, or appoint a proxy in advance. The directors can only vote as proxy on their fees if you direct them how to vote as a proxy. So you can only change your mind depending on what you hear at the meeting by finding someone else that you trust who will be attending the meeting on your behalf and send your proxy for them in advance.

Essentially the rules on shareholders relationships with directors have not changed for hundreds of years as far as I can see, during which time the companies themselves have changed enormously. Maybe better to email the directors group or the Minister or the NZX or the FMA or all of them and tell them it is high time directors had to consult better with shareholders. Good luck with that. (Amended: "write to", since emails invariably bounce off teflon walls of underpaid flunkies who seem to think their job is to ensure that nobody important ever has to bother themselves with actual feedback.)

In this instance, for example, we are being asked to vote for directors who have not seen fit to present us with any written communication to explain why we should do so or what role they each are playing in the board policies, and we are also being asked to vote for increasing fees without any communication explaining why we should do that. Directors are apparently not even legally required to write anything in support of resolutions they put to the AGM nor even tell us who proposed the motion. Likewise they do not seem obliged to write anything in their annual report other than the accounting standards require and any news which is "Material" under the NZX rules, but which they have to release outside the annual report regardless.

I continue to feel that this company could do quite a bit more in shareholder communication.

[simla]

Of course, if you want to be more interesting then there is Section 178 of the Companies Act.

" 178. Information for shareholders

(1) A shareholder may at any time make a written request to a company for information held by the company.

(2) The request must specify the information sought in sufficient detail to enable it to be identified.

(3) Within 10 working days of receiving a request under subsection (1), the company must either—
(a) provide the information; or
(b) agree to provide the information within a specified period; or
(c) agree to provide the information within a specified period if the shareholder pays a reasonable charge to the company (which must be specified and explained) to meet the cost of providing the information; or
(d) refuse to provide the information specifying the reasons for the refusal.

(4) Without limiting the reasons for which a company may refuse to provide information under this section, a company may refuse to provide information if—
(a) the disclosure of the information would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial position of the company; or
(b) the disclosure of the information would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial position of any other person, whether or not that person supplied the information to the company; or
(c) the request for the information is frivolous or vexatious.

(5) If the company requires the shareholder to pay a charge for the information, the shareholder may withdraw the request, and is deemed to have done so unless, within 10 working days of receiving notification of the charge, the shareholder informs the company—
(a) that the shareholder will pay the charge; or
(b) that the shareholder considers the charge to be unreasonable.

(6) The court may, on the application of a person who has made a request for information, if it is satisfied that—
(a) the period specified for providing the information is unreasonable; or
(b) the charge set by the company is unreasonable
as the case may be, make an order requiring the company to supply the information within such time or on payment of such charge as the court thinks fit.

(7) The court may, on the application of a person who has made a request for information, if it is satisfied that—
(a) the company does not have sufficient reason to refuse to supply the information; or
(b) the company has sufficient reason to refuse to supply the information but that other reasons exist that outweigh the refusal,—
make an order requiring the company to supply the information.

(8) Where the court makes an order under subsection (7), it may specify the use that may be made of the information and the persons to whom it may be disclosed.

(9) On an application for an order under this section, the court may make such order for the payment of costs as it thinks fit.

[patrick]

The optimists view might be that news at the meeting will justify the increase, large that it is.
This is a time where the Company needs all the best skills and judgement so I will support.
Bliss, with its great product should, with the best leadership, have produced good profits before now, i reason.
Patrick

[patrick]

And can someone take out the sellers at 034?