NZ Oil & Gas (NZO)

[neopoleII]

""So, although 95% of shareholders did not vote (making up 75% shares) the motion was passed. Democracy I guess""

yes democracy it is.
but why should non votes count as siding with the management?

what if this was the voting outcome for NZ government?

imagine a voter turnout out of 5%.

either the government would ask the public why they dont want to vote.
or Moodies or some such folk would seriously be looking at the credit rating of NZ and asking serious questions.

a country that has a 5% voter turn out is a country falling into apathy.

in NZO's case.... the sp is in the dumps, and the co is in apathy and the board continues on is merry democratic way collecting all non votes and claiming it has 80% shareholder approval!

what they dont seem to realise or care about is the only way the sp is going up is from people wanting to buy the shares.

it seems that only the management really want to buy the shares to help stop a takeover and secure their paypackets.

people who can really drive the sp higher seem to be sitting on the sidelines, waiting for, ummm ..... drilling i guess.

even the golden egg Kupe means nothing anymore as the income is going ...... well...... somewhere?

share holders arent seeing much and most like me cant be bothered to vote either.

so...... if i didnt vote, i wont complain.
but i dont like my non vote stolen and put into the yes camp.

my non vote was a pointed note that i dont think the management is worth voting for, yet i dont want to sell my stock and take a loss.

i guess this is where the management has shareholders over a barrel.

[digger]

Went to the Wellington meeting today and became one of the .001% that was in attendance. It was short and dealt with the single motion on the table that being to offer AK 3 million options for 1 dollar in 3 to 5 years time. 30% of all avaliable vote were cast for,against or abstain. The remaining 70% of votes were not received in time for the meeting so as with any democracy were not part of the action.
These figures differ from what some of you are saying but i can not see where you cals are coming from.Where do you see that non votes were counted as votes in favor. That one beats me.
The presentation at the end of the meeting was given by AK after the formal meeting closed .It is on the web site and well worth a read.We have some very interesting things coming up in the next year or two,any of which could change the value of the company.Now i know that about 10 years ago Arjay and I were coming back from Auckland AGM saying the same thing.Still the overseas ventures make it different now with both more upside and downside.I personally would have stayed in NZ[look at how well TAG has done]. Note also the directors are pointing out that there is limited downside to the overseas ventures but i am not convinced on that one.
A big hello to the woman who sat next to me who wanted a cup of tea after the meeting but could only find that all being offered was cold water.I hope that in every way AK leads his team in the same penny pinching spirit until we find some more oil,and if he does we can all look forward to a large drop in adminstration expenses.
Cheers all

[brucey09]

Snr. Digger
Did you say these things to Ak about less costs?.

[digger]

Snr. Digger
Did you say these things to Ak about less costs?.

No this did not come up as the women was looking for cup of tea after the meeting and other things came up.Thought i would post it like that so the directors get the idea that ecomomy begins at home.Anyways water is cheaper than champagne on overseas travels.
I voted in favor of the resolution as i see it as part of his startup package. I did before the meeting say that i would vote in favor but will not do so on an annual basis like we did for DS. After this startup package now completed today i believe we all should vote against any futher perks unless they are clearly earned as in that we sharholders also see an equal increase in value.
Also i did ask what happened to the many and yearly options given to DS and the chairman Peter Griffiths replied that most lasped as out of the money. Some were shares so they still have some value.Some options while curently well out of the money still have time to run.All in all it turned out for DS not as good as first it looked when the options were issued.

[iceman]

Went to the Wellington meeting today and became one of the .001% that was in attendance. It was short and dealt with the single motion on the table that being to offer AK 3 million options for 1 dollar in 3 to 5 years time. 30% of all avaliable vote were cast for,against or abstain. The remaining 70% of votes were not received in time for the meeting so as with any democracy were not part of the action.
These figures differ from what some of you are saying but i can not see where you cals are coming from.Where do you see that non votes were counted as votes in favor. That one beats me.
The presentation at the end of the meeting was given by AK after the formal meeting closed .It is on the web site and well worth a read.We have some very interesting things coming up in the next year or two,any of which could change the value of the company.Now i know that about 10 years ago Arjay and I were coming back from Auckland AGM saying the same thing.Still the overseas ventures make it different now with both more upside and downside.I personally would have stayed in NZ[look at how well TAG has done]. Note also the directors are pointing out that there is limited downside to the overseas ventures but i am not convinced on that one.
A big hello to the woman who sat next to me who wanted a cup of tea after the meeting but could only find that all being offered was cold water.I hope that in every way AK leads his team in the same penny pinching spirit until we find some more oil,and if he does we can all look forward to a large drop in adminstration expenses.
Cheers all

Thank you for your summary Digger. As always, I appreciate hearing what you do have to say about this company. I will read AK's presentation in the next couple of days. Like you, I did not understand earlier posts about treatment of non votes so am glad that you have confirmed I am not the only one confused. Unfortunately I could not attend but did send in my proxy, voting against the resolution, which I think is far too generous coming from today's SP which most of us believe is a fairly low starting point. They should set the bar for AK much higher in my view.

[arjay]

Neopole - taking your observation to it's extreme, if one person only, holding only one share only, had gone to meeting and voted (say) against the motion it would have been defeated (the opposite is also true). This represents a decision being made based on the view expressed by the holder of 0.0000003% of the listed shares. It's a strange way to run business. I would like to see motions requiring a decent turnout to receive a mandate.

[digger]

Neopole - taking your observation to it's extreme, if one person only, holding only one share only, had gone to meeting and voted (say) against the motion it would have been defeated (the opposite is also true). This represents a decision being made based on the view expressed by the holder of 0.0000003% of the listed shares. It's a strange way to run business. I would like to see motions requiring a decent turnout to receive a mandate.

Hi Arjay,

Interesting point this brings up. I am almost certain that the directors require a quorum before they can make decisions,but i doubt that applies to an advertised public meeting of a listed company when it is clear that a decision will be finalised.
Non participation in a free vote can show any number of things depending where your coming from.Could be apathy,lack of confidence that you can influence the outcome,trust in the organisers to do the right thing,or a neutral concern with the outcome.

[Chris Roberts]

Just to clarify - a poll was taken at the meeting. So the votes of the dozen or so shareholders who attended the meeting were added to the 818 valid proxy votes received before the meeting to give the final result. Voting forms were sent to every shareholder. 95% chose not to send it back in the supplied reply paid envelope so missed out on the chance to participate in the decision.

[arjay]

Digger, I suspect your suggestion of apathy was the main factor for the low response. Admittedly, many of us have been grumbling about the package voted on, but in the big picture it was not a major issue and certainly not something that would motivate many shareholders to take the day off and head to Wellington for a meeting that didn't really warrant being called for such a minor (and single) vote. As Chris has re-iterated, voters could still have sent in their proxy, but for many (especially the bulk of small-holders) maybe it just wasn't an issue big enough to encourage them to do the paperwork. Arguably, this sort of situation might favour the company position.

[777]

The top 25 shareholders hold 46% of the shares. What ever they decide goes. Pointless anyone else voting. I am sure management look for support from the bigger holders before putting forward a proposal. They won't want it to fail.

Hold 160,000. Didn't vote. Not apathy just being practical.