Voting time ... and a surprise
Another annual meeting and opportunity to either confirm and / or dismiss the board (well, the one third which is up for re-election).
One of my criteria of how to vote is to assess how the board did over the last 3 year term. Given that it is these days much more in fashion to beat the SUM board up ... did I come up this morning when doing the numbers with a small surprise:
NZX 50 performance over the last 3 years: +70% (well, we knew that before) ...
SUM share price performance (same time frame) : + 115% (which compares to MET - +105% and RYM + 165%).
(edit / note: this is not considering the divvies paid, they would still slightly improve the performance of
all 3 companies compared to the NZX50 - but hardly in a material way)
So SUM is not the best of the three (well, over the last 3 years anyway), but not bad for an underdog either - isn't it?
Based on this result, based on the board showing last year at least some flexibility and openness to correct their behaviour (at last) ... and based on that it is not Norah standing, am I inclined to re-elect the 2 candidates standing for reelection.
more to vote for - or against ....
same AGM, different subject: I noticed two somewhat cryptic resolutions in the voting paper:
Ordinary Resolution 4: Shareholder proposal in relation to Summerset’s philosophy
Summerset has received the text of Resolution 4 from Gareth Worthington on behalf of Luzo Limited (a
Summerset Shareholder). Luzo Limited provided an explanatory note for this resolution which has not been
included in the notice of meeting in accordance with Clause 9(6)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Companies Act 1993,
as the Board of Directors considers the statements in it to be defamatory, frivolous or vexatious.
Luzo Limited (through its appointed corporate representative) will be provided with an opportunity to speak at
the Annual Meeting about this shareholder proposal.
Pursuant to the Companies Act 1993, Resolution 4, if passed, will not be binding on the Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors consider that the Board and management consistently act in accordance with
Summerset’s philosophy to be upfront, open and honest. The Board of Directors also does not consider that
management have conducted themselves in a way that has caused harm to Summerset’s reputation.
The Board considers this resolution unnecessary and recommends that you ABSTAIN from voting on
it.
Ordinary Resolution 5: Shareholder proposal in relation to the Resource Consent application in
Boulcott, Lower Hutt
Summerset has received the text of Resolution 5 from Gareth Worthington, on behalf of Luzo Limited (a
Summerset Shareholder). Luzo Limited provided an explanatory note for this resolution which has not been
included in the notice of meeting in accordance with Clause 9(6)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Companies Act 1993,
as the Board of Directors considers the statements in it to be defamatory, frivolous or vexatious.
Luzo Limited (through its appointed corporate representative) will be provided with an opportunity to speak at
the Annual Meeting about this shareholder proposal.
Pursuant to the Companies Act 1993, Resolution 5, if passed, will not be binding on the Board of Directors.
Summerset is currently engaged in seeking to consent land in Boulcott, Lower Hutt for development. This
consent is being sought through the processes laid out by the Hutt City Council and the Resource Management
Act 1991. The Board considers that management have acted in an appropriate manner throughout the
process, and in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991.
The Board considers that Summerset has consulted extensively with interested parties and has made changes
to its plans following feedback from interested parties. The Board also considers that the development, if
approved, will provide a first class retirement village facility for Lower Hutt and provide an option for people to
retire locally in their community without having to move outside of the city. The Board confirms that at no stage
has any individual in Summerset ever indicated to the Hutt City Council, or any other party, that the
development would be no more than two levels high.
The Board confirms that Summerset is committed to working through the resource consenting process. This
process is the proper forum in which the merits of the development should be debated.
The Board does NOT support the passing of this resolution and recommends that you vote AGAINST
it.
Does anybody around here know more about these 2 resolutions? Could be just a disgruntled Lower Hutt neighbour who happened to buy some SUM shares to bring their complaints to the AGM - or could be more.