SUM - Summerset Group

[Vaygor1]

Vaygori -Thank you for that impartial comment. Particularly as it is free of sour grapes bias as a professed non shareholder. You stress a good point. Can we learn something of the culture of the Board from this lesson? Where do their greater loyalties lie? Should we use this background as a filter when listening to/reading any reports on the company`s progress into the future?

Disclosure - I have substantially sold down since. All I need are convincing and reassuring noises from the AGM to convince me that protecting my investment back-side as I did was an imprudent move.

Thanks Tevita.

The integrity of the any board (made up of a combination of both trust in them and confidence to do the job) is imperative to me.

This is evidenced in some of my posts in ST. ie in July-2013 http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthr...l=1#post415533 where I state "… never ever underestimate the value of an honest board."

The trouble is that when it comes to Board Integrity it can be very difficult to collect reliable data to form an accurate view. Opportunities to do so rarely present themselves in less-than-honest boards, because by virtue of their nature they will not announce any bad news until the horse has well and truly bolted. By the same token they will also spin average (or below average) news as great.

So in answer to your three questions:

Can we learn something of the culture of the Board from this lesson?
Yes. I think so. I know I have.

Where do their greater loyalties lie?
Hard to say. I think it is a fair call to say their greater loyalties lie with Norah than with the overall group of shareholders . But loyalty through respect or fear? The question begs.

Should we use this background as a filter when listening to/reading any reports on the company`s progress into the future?
I think so. At the vary least, anything emanating from any (actual or perceived) dodgy board should be treated more cautiously then would otherwise be the case. For me, I take it further than this and treat anything emanating from such a board with a fair amount of scepticism.

[macduffy]

Normally it would but in the case of SUM management replies to share holders can be evasive and arrogant.
However I just made an observation which I tough was worth sharing.

Fair point, forest.

If you follow up by asking the company, perhaps a cc to the NZX might elicit a reply? Or, perhaps not.

[Beagle]

Nice sleuthing Forest. Its no accident its not there, anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve. NG - FMA investigation if indeed they decide to do one won't undermine the company's financials. What it will do is to fire a very close shot across the bow of the board that this sort of behaviour is completly unacceptable and help the company directors be more honest and transparent in the future. Would you really be happy for instance if Julian Cook bought $4.8 million dollars of stock a day or two before the Q3 sales announcement knowing what the numbers are because according to the board and senior management they (at present), don't have any issue with directors or management trading using inside knowledge, in fact are happy to pre-approve this sort of transaction and defend their right to do so. Further I have it in writing that they think quarterly sales results don't contain price sensitive information. They have outright declined to impose a black-out period of 30 days on management and director trading prior to quarterly sales announcements despite my written request to amend their securities trading policies to that effect. I went to considerable effort and time to explain why I believe the quarterly sales results do indeed contain price sensitive information and why a 30 day black out period would be desirable. At present it would appear they are not interested in best practice corporate governance which is something of considerable surprise seeing as the Chairman is widely perceived to be highly experienced.
If they'd played nice and took their corporate governance issues seriously there wouldn't be a need to go to the FMA would there...

Philosophy 101 - "To thine own self be true" If something really gets under your skin and absolutely grates at the core principle's of what you believe in, (openness honest, transparency, directors acting in good faith e.t.c.e.t.c.) and it isn't right, you've got to do what you believe needs to be done. I hold shares in the company too.

[Vaygor1]

FFS guys. Please don't kill the stock in the name of your crusade. Yes, I agree that something is fishy here, but I don't really like the idea of the FMA sniffing around and destroying investor confidence. I have WAY too much invested to see this puppy derailed by keyboard warriors with an axe to grind. Cheers in advance.

This forum and FMA involvement can only enhance investor confidence.

My understanding from your earlier posts is you wish to hold for 3-4 years minimum.

The current issue of Norah's transaction will not affect the share price one iota in 3-4 years time, but a board with some rot in it might.

Would this forum impact even today's share price? I doubt it according to your post from the RYM thread... "Also, I have no vested interest in the future performance of RYM and certainly am not trying to influence its SP. To think that this forum could actually affect the SP of RYM in any meaningful way is even sillier than the spurious tech stock comparisons above ".

Link: http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthr...l=1#post468583

[Vaygor1]

Nice sleuthing Forest. Its no accident its not there...

Dead right. Another sign.

[Vaygor1]

Why don't you man up and do it? I gather you're as capable as anyone else. You certainly appear to have a healthy stake in the matter.

… and I would appreciate it if you didn't 'FFS guys' me again. It doesn't help.

[Vaygor1]

One of you should man up and call their investor relations person to clarify the omission.

Given SUM's Investor Relations Person's responses on this issue to-date it would be a complete waste of time to call them. The response will be meaningless. If they say it was a mistake will you believe them? Please don't say Yes.

Anyway. I already 'know' the truth. Someone from the highest level made a conscious decision to either take it out, or not put it in. I have more chance of being struck by a meteorite than this being an accidental omission.

[Beagle]

Given SUM's Investor Relations Person's responses on this issue to-date it would be a complete waste of time to call them. The response will be meaningless. If they say it was a mistake will you believe them? Please don't say Yes.

Anyway. I already 'know' the truth. Someone from the highest level made a conscious to either take it out, or not put it in. I have more chance of being struck by a meteorite than this being an accidental omission.

LOL That's pure Gold !!!

[Bjauck]

FFS guys. Please don't kill the stock in the name of your crusade. Yes, I agree that something is fishy here, but I don't really like the idea of the FMA sniffing around and destroying investor confidence. I have WAY too much invested to see this puppy derailed by keyboard warriors with an axe to grind. Cheers in advance.

SUM is one of my larger shareholdings too. However, I am of the opinion that any rules relating to insider trading should be rigorously enforced. The directors should be beyond reproach in their actions. She'll be right and brushing things under the carpet may build up into a bigger issue later on, with even greater impact on SP.

[Beagle]

Anyway....Ladies and Gents, I will do what I feel I must either next week or the one after depending on time available and will do my best to move on and leave it at that. Simply put this is a stone in my shoe that I feel I have to remove and put into the FMA's shoe as its their job to enforce the regulations. I expect the very highest standards of ethics and behaviour of experienced company directors and there is an extremely important matter of principle here that is well worthy of a proper investigation, in my opinion. Seeing as the company won't do it themselves then they leave me with no alternative, (and I would add that I forewarned them of that if they didn't take the matter seriously, which they didn't). NZSA are aware I want this progressed by the end of the month and as I haven't heard back from them again I will look to progress this in early October regardless of their support or otherwise. FMA enquiry, if any, is behind closed doors and it doesn't get into the media unless there's a public ruling and even then its a Norah Barlow thing not necessarily a SUM thing per se. I am very disappointed to have to go down this path but those who I've taken into my confidence and shared a copy of my correspondence to SUM and their response by PM know I've tried hard to resolve this through unofficial channells and SUM's response is woefully inadequate to say the very least.

I am looking forward to discussing SUM's (hopefully really positive Q3 sales announcement) early next month and genuinely hope none of the directors or management are silly enough to buy or sell shares close to a quarterly sales result again. Provided everyone else leaves this old cheastnut alone, I will do my level best to move on. The ball will be in the FMA's court shortly, which is where it belongs.