big volume today...
Printable View
big volume today...
Agree world events have pushed the SP down but regardless of that with the NZO cash pile it was never necessary to go that low.At $1-40 i spoke against a BB but at these very low levels that is no longer the case.My poll certainly showed that the majority was in favor of using some of their money to support the price somewhere i estimate in the 1-25 to 1-30 level. My conspiracy here is not that the directors drove it down but for some reason did nothing to support it when the price got miles too low. WHY??? Look no further than resolution 7 and 8 for the answer.
Thanks for the many emails i am getting regarding resolutions 5,6,7,and 8 which i will be opposing.Anyone else interested and not attending the AGM in Wellington on the 29th but want their vote counted I will look after their proxy. Send to
Charles Boreham
364 Quine road
RD3
Morrinsville/
My email is cboreham@farmside.co.nz
Cheers Digger
Digger,
If you think anything the directors might have done would have saved the share price from the forces that have been in play recently then you must still believe in the tooth fairy. It would have been been a pointless, frivolous, and negligent exercise. Even the most powerful governments in the world pouring stupendous sums of money into the market haven't been able to do it - so why would NZOG's directors?
In fact NZOG's share price has held up much better than most oilers, so why don't we give them some recognition for that?
You want the directors to be given recognition - what exactly have they done to warrant recognition? NZO is more of a cashbox than most oilers. That alone holds the share price better than the average.
Please explain why improving earnings per share is pointless, frivolous, and negligent.
Hi Digger,
Res 5, Andrew has the sort of experience we need on the Board. Capable guy.
Res 6 These guys get enough. It is like a merry-go-round quoting that they need to keep up with other companies. This is the sort of rort that needs to be stopped. If a Director wants to step down because he/she isnt paid enough then let's negotiate. I am available at the existing levels. lol.
Res 7 I dont mind Directors getting a limited number of partly paid shares. Keeps them interested and in the game. Of course I would love to see them make full purchases in their own right.
Res 8. DS has enough already. About time he started purchasing on his own account. Plenty of other MD's do.
And let's just concentrate on Taranaki.Cheers
IS NZO a long term holder of PRC or are they looking to flick it off in the near future? It would have been nice to flick off the 30% at over $2 early this year.
.
YOU BIG SHAREHOLDERS CAN STAND ASIDE CONTINUING YOUR FIGHTING.
I, a small shareholder is just wish the company to conduct a compulsory share buyback 1 in 20 @$1.75.
It will only cost the company about $33.6M, approx 5% of total shares.
Why I suggest the buyback price @$1.75? Because the company got $1.50 from option NZOOD, minus 5c dividend, and then plus 20% gains from US$ + interest.
.
I personal believe NZO should be taking over or looking at friendly merger options in the ASX jnr's
there's so many undervalued oilers in the Oil&Gas market atm it's just about stupid not to at least be looking closely Thats if NZO wants to grow into a ASX mid-cap if not do nothing stay NZ'ed focused build the cash balance and wait to be taken-over
81.5 MIL. @ $ 1.43 = $116.5 MIL. PLUS $ 300 MIL. IN HAND = $ 416 MIL PRESENT VALUE OF CO.
360 MIL. + SHARES @ $ 1.08 = $ 388 MIL.
THE VULTURES ARE CIRCLING AND I DO NOT LIKE IT ONE BIT, ANY ONE HAVING SIMILAR SENTIMENTS.
Anybody can be conned, it is just that a sucker will bet money thinking he can't be.
btw. $ 1.25 - $ 1.30 could buy maybe a comanding interest in nzo.
fish, Is i that simple that they can just do it? I think the ESOP is entitled to do on market purchases, but not suer about the company in general - or has it previously got the ok for that? I recall seeing other companies getting it approced by share holders, or at least reffering to it happening before doing it, and then reporting daily.
I don't think it would be legit to do a buyback simply to push the price up 20c.. That would be deemed market manipulation.. wouldn't it?
Can't really see the point of NZO buying back more of their shares not really a decisive growth plan
In the current times mass Fear NZO management should be very greedy and looking at ways to wisely spend some of their kitty to grow NZO's reserves low risk Why spend massive amounts exploring when is cheaper to buy assets NZO has a massive advantage many jnr Oilers would love to be in.
Just like many things like Houses buildings etc it's far cheaper to go out buy a brand new home than build the same home in the current marketplace
I think some of you guys are being a little unfair on NZO management.
They do not control the market, and are not responsible for the share price drop. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect that they try to fight the sinking market. Management are there to create long-term shareholder value and not make SHORT-TERM decision just to hold the share price up. This is the type of thinking that has led the world down the path we are on.
For a lot of companies a share buy back is not a silly idea when share prices are lower than fundamental value. However, NZO is a growth orientated company and in a market with so many opportunities a share buy back would be conceding that there are none.
Everyone knows NZO have a massive amount of cash. And this is a once in a life time opportunity for this company. In the long term a well thought out acquisition of a beaten down oiler will create more value than buying a few shares back to raise the share price 10%.
Caution is what is needed. We are in uncharted territory.
I doubt it would be a problem to do it-companies such as vector just seem to make annoucements-
Cashed up Vector to buy back shares
5:00AM Saturday Aug 02, 2008
Vector, New Zealand's biggest electricity and gas distributor, plans to buy back as many as 25 million of the company's shares to increase investor returns.
Vector's shares are undervalued and represent an attractive "risk-return proposition," chairman Mike Stiassny said in a statement to the NZ stock exchange yesterday.
Terms of the buyback, equivalent to 2.5 per cent of the company's shares, will be provided after full-year results on August 27, he said.
Auckland-based Vector has funds to spare after the $785 million sale of its Wellington power network to Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings last month. The sale reduced the company's debt to 50 per cent of total assets and prompted Moody's Investors Service to raise Vector's rating outlook to "stable" from "developing".
Vector gained 7 cents to $2.25 yesterday. The stock has advanced 13 per cent since shareholders approved the Wellington asset sale on May 30.
At yesterday's price, the proposed buyback will cost the company about $56 million.
They can do it, but even this Vecor case implies 5 odd weeks from announcement of intention to actually doing it - I guess that gets around the manipulation part, and makes it a support maker.. And it has done that, only around 10% off its peak...
What you say is correct but only half said.The directors are not in any way that i know of responsible for the current world events nor can they take any credit for the rapid rise in crude oil that brought us in so much money.I am not asking the directors to solve the world finanical problems--just to recognise that we would be a better team if we were all in the same boat.This is not the time for newby of NZO to be lining their own pockets by asking the rest of us to carry the down side risk of the decisions they make.
The share price has held up much better than other oilers because much of it we just put there by the last exercising of options.The other oilers you refer to only had oil income .It is now at these very low prices not unreasonable for NZO to put some of that back[somewhere between 1-25 to1-30] And i do give the directors a lot of respect but not the two newbys that have their hand stuck out under resolution 7 and 8. Respect has to be earned over time and they are going about it the wrong way.
Of course they should try to counteract the sinking market. They are there to enhance shareholder value. Doing nothing while the market marks down the stock by much more than the indexes is not good for the long term image of the company. This is a market - they need to promote their stock as solid and suitable for long term holders. By doing nothing at a time of wild swings they promote the stock as suitable for traders. This will encourage shareholders in future to bail out at the first signs of any trouble, and perpetuate that cycle.
A large part of the share price drop is related to the market recently being flooded with shares from the NZOOD options. That has resulted in a number of weak holders, as well as massive dilution of profits from the established projects. This is a board action that has thus far undermined the share price.
The resolution to increase directors fees by over 100%, in a year when shareholders have received no return must also have a significant negative impact on the share price. It is not being unfair on management to bring this up - they initiated this stupid idea, and thus far haven't shown the nous that Vector did in withdrawing the proposal.
There may be a lot of cash in the bank, but thus far the company has failed to give any concrete indication of what will be done with it. They are thereby creating uncertainty, which is a well known path to investor disquiet. It is increasingly looking like they have no plan - all that dilution for nothing. A simple reassuring announcement would help to alleviate shareholder concerns and give the impression that things were under control - but that has not happened.
In the absence of any announcement the market will usually assume the worst - perhaps the hedging costs from last year have continued, or increased; perhaps some of that cash is not safe as shareholders might think. It is not a case of being unfair on the directors - the simple facts are that their actions and lack of actions have contributed to the current low share price.
Engineers warn of imminent oil shock
4:00AM Tuesday Oct 21, 2008
By Mathew Dearnaley
Petrol prices come down 5c
Engineers are warning politicians that the lull in oil prices will be short-lived, and New Zealand is headed for sustained job losses unless it boosts energy efficiency efforts.
Senior North Shore City transport strategist Archer Davis, speaking on behalf of Engineers for Social Responsibility, said a conservative estimate of a 4 per cent annual decline in oil supply raises the prospect of a 12 per cent contraction of New Zealand's economy over 15 years.
"We are looking at losses of jobs, people losing their income, we are looking at severe issues here," he told Auckland Regional Council members in a call to action after a joint conference of the engineers' group and the Sustainable Energy Forum on how to prepare for oil shortages.
"It will have a major impact and it will be ongoing - it won't be short term."
Mr Davis, a civil engineer with 30 years of managing local government services, said his calculations were based on an International Energy Agency indication three years ago of a 50 per cent chance of reaching global peak oil production in 2012.
That probability assessment of the leading international oil management organisation had since been overtaken by estimates of an even more imminent peak, after which supplies would become scarcer, costlier and of lower quality.
New Zealand could be left on even shorter rations as bilateral deals between producers and large consuming nations such as the United States and China sew up dwindling supplies.
Although the international body believed energy use could be reduced by 7 per cent by voluntary efforts, his conservative assessment was that New Zealand would need some type of rationing to achieve a 10 per cent cut by 2018.
Far more forceful measures would be needed to achieve the 20 per cent needed by 2022, requiring a lead time of about 10 years.
That was how long it had taken in the past to develop transport initiatives such as North Shore's network of cycling paths and the Northern Busway.
Mr Davis said New Zealand's only hope was to "decouple" energy consumption from gross domestic product by using oil and other resources far more efficiently.
Urgent measures needed in transport included ending government subsidies for "personal car infrastructure"; stopping free parking; converting public transport vehicles, including buses, to electricity; converting motorway lanes to public transport; supporting car "clubs" of shared vehicle use rather than individual ownership; and focusing on the development of small mixed-use town centres, but not remote "dormitory" communities, to reduce travel needs.
That meant "defending the MUL [Auckland's metropolitan urban limit] to the last councillor - I would hope".
Mr Davis said electric cars for personal transport were "a pretty long shot" at a time when households would be struggling to cope financially, with little to spare for costly purchases.
"It could be done but electric cars will cost $25,000 or more," he said.
"The break-even [for electric cars] against the internal combustion is only when petrol gets to $4 a litre, so unless that happens, it doesn't make economic sense."
But he said electricity was a far safer proposition for mass transport.
Electric cars are the future, just as nuclear generation wil be the source of power for most countries. Electric cars are cheaper to run, but at the moment rely on heavy inefficiant batteries. Shares to get into for the ride back up, are oil first, which will double and triple in price, followed by another collapse when the new technology takes over.
The new technology battery metals will be well worth investing in which will sky rocket in price. Then we have the uranium which is out of favour making a huge come back.
Electric cars are safer cheaper to run have very few moving parts in comparison and should be cheaper to buy. I see the future as instead of filling up you swap batteries which will be on hire. Getting back to NZO the management will have their pay rise they have enough votes tied up to push that one.
People never seem to understand that investing is a private thing, with companies competing for your investment dollar. To fall in love and worry about the direction of a company is a very stupid thing to get your self involved in. The most successfull investors are the ones that stand back with an open mind, [similar to NZO management] and play the game for everything its worth. Macdunk
MD. Can you slap some time frames with that?
Big story on bloomberg.com about Oracle to buy back as much as 8 billion of its own shares after they fell 20%.
Some of you posters would have us believe that a buy back is always a tooth fairy land thing and that really each company should use that money to get another expensive director and go the acquisition way.When the drop gets big enough a company should support itself as Unicorn has so well put it.This support is not a charity but a long term investment decision that stabalises the price for future investers that are always considering where best to put there money.Could some of you please tell Oracle they do not know what they are doing.
Unicorn and i only disagree on the BB trigger level.He wants it as high as 1-40 and i feel it must be a good deal for the company first and therefor only as high as $1-30.
Digger
1,NZO management will get this pay rise.
2,Oil will at least double in price 2009.
3,electric cars will be mass produced in three years.
4, The chinese are at this moment running hundreds of thousands of electric scooters
5, The metals for the new battery technology will explode in price.
6,Nuclear is the only long term source of additional power in the foreseeable future for most countries.
America and China will try and corner the oil market as they are doing right now, oil will go sky high, thats when to get out of it. This time set yourself a stop loss NITA you must be a bit more clued up from the last time.
Macdunk
Digger, I would be happy for a buy back as well, and yes, it would give the price some much needed support.
My comments simply relate to the impression I have based on what I have seen, and that its not simply a matter of buying shares, then reporting it.
Maybe it isn't complex, AUW have done so this year, and started 2 weeks after announcing it.
Their reasons seem like they should be familiar to...
Although, it still didn't stop the price from dropping from 1.90 to 1.20 over that time to finish buying back when the price was 1.40, (now 1.00).
So short term it hasn't done a lot for them...
Sehnsucht888
AUW is a very good example of the futility of most share buy-back schemes. They chased the market all the way down from A$1.985 to A$1.13, spending A$25 mil at an average of A$1.47.
And when they stopped buying the price kept going down to where it is currently at $0.975.
The end result is that they have lost A$8.5 million or 34% of the A$25 million they have spent on that exercise, and probably haven't helped support the share price for the average investor.
King Canute thought he could do it, and so do Unicorn and Digger.
Other oilers I follow have performed in the period from the beginning of May to now:
AWE -46%
HZN -37%
FAR -63%
CUE -48%
NZO -21%
Wirimu,
they only lose the 8.5mil. if they have to sell, but on the plus side they bought a bit more protection against raiders.
I would only rec. b/b for nzo if this crisis cont. and or gets worse,
for under a Dollar.
The lower the nzo s/p the more vulnerable they become.
Hey Wiremu and 888 ,you are both fudging the figures to get the results you want.For a start if NZO starts soon they will be at a reasonable guess at the bottom of this cycle.AUW has indeed taken on the world at the crest and lost.If you go back a few short weeks i was cunningly against a BB. Now for NZO to entre has a good chance of not only seemingly to be doing something but more importantly a good chance to shortly show a profit.
If the directors had a small fraction of the interest in shareholders welfare as their own they would have no concerns even if a small loss occured.However at this stage and if we hold the BB to no more than$1-30 it will be a far better deal than what resolution 7 and 8 will eventually cost the company.Directors greed is showing itself to be a bottomless pit but the $1-30 will have a limited life span as TUI cash is fast closing in on that value.
So speaking for my 1% of the company[all of which i paid for and no one else was ever asked to carry the potential downside] i would like to see a BB acted on now to $1-30. This time is different from AUW as we are at the probable bottom and not the crest.
Digger
.
NZO shareholders,
My suggestion is a compulsory share buyback “1 in 20” or “1 in 15” price @$1.75. It is “equal and fair” to every NZO shareholder. And the key is the company will not lose on this conduct. Because the company got $1.50 from each option NZOOD, minus 5c dividend, plus the gain 20% on US$ and interest.
Bb
.
I think we may now be off the bottom.
14% gain for the day. And thats with a drop in PRC share price.
I think you have misquoted me Digger. I would want any buyback to have stopped before the share price reached 140c - preferably somewhat before that.
The level to be buying back is down at the sub 125c level, and even more so at the sub 115c level where a few million have traded of late. The time to be buying is when the market is empty of buyers and the price is in free fall. It would not have cost very much to support the share price at 115c or 120c, and would have greatly helped shareholder confidence.
I would only support an on market buyback, to soak up any cheap shares - any compulsory buyback would not help, as there is no need to buy shares that are not for sale.
I don't see why the company should buy shares that I don't want to sell. I also see no reason why the company would pay more than current market price for shares.
The objective of any buyback must be to enhance the value for continuing shareholders, by buying assets cheaply and increasing earnings per share. Your proposal does neither of those.
I don't see the relevance of the 20% difference in the exchange rate.
Do those other companies hold over 60% of their market cap in cash?
Have those other companies released an additional 50% of their shares onto the market in that timeframe?
AUW were paying more than 12x earnings for their buyback, which would equate to NZO buying back at above 240c. Don't you understand the difference?
I would think a buy back in the open market is a great tdea. Sell at $1-50 buy back at anything under that from the brain dead. It would be a technical analysis versus old fundies who when times are right would pay another $!-50 for some more of the same medicine. Who needs oil when you can exploit the financial illiterates with wild promises and free options.
Macdunk
.
Wiremu, it seems we both have got big red crosses on our papers.
.
Digger, I don't think I have fudged any figures. Maybe I should have said "from about", but those numbers are pretty close from the chart I checked.
My point was that the buy back gave some? support for a period, but then the support ended and the price didn't increase.
Unicorn - PPP has around 100% market cap in cash - maybe more than 100%, and it hasn't stopped it from dropping to that. (Although it has got to a point where it seems no one would sell at silly values).
Unfortunately, I have to almost agree with McDunk. Fundamentals are not meaning a lot at the moment.
Further Unicorn- Wiremu's example shows that NZO (since may) has lost substantially less than the other companies in the example and so is showing what the 60% cash & assets has done for support I assume.
NZO have cash but investors/potential investors are concerned as to what they will do with it, according to the commonly voiced theme and that deters some.
I have been with NZO since 30c and steadily increased my position since, so don't get me wrong, I also believe in the potential. (Opening up for McDunk to comment about falling in love with a company..) I have sold when required, but bought when it seemed appropriate. And if I had been smarter/less stubborn I would have much more than I have at the moment.
I am not saying don't do a buy back, I simply comment that in cases I have seen, (yes different circumstances), it hasn't done much in the long term.
Hopefully it will be a moot point shortly, and the price will be back where it should be..
Assuming foreign markets and the oil price stabalise as they are appearing to do - there may be no time for NZO to action a buy back anyway.
BixBite, its not to do with 'red crosses,' its to do with increasing shareholder value.
If you want more cash handed out, reinvest in a dividend paying company.
Basically what you're saying is you want a special dividend, and the shareprice would react the same way it does when it goes ex-divendend - ie downwards by the amount paid out.
If it was $1.75 per share, expect a drop of $1.75/20 ~ 9 cents... what good does that do, it just gives confusing signals to shareholders.
Suppose however, a buy back is announced, it indicates that the directors believe the company is undervalued and the best place for some money is into itself. It sends 'positive' messages out to the investing public. Emperical evidence also shows investor returns outperform longterm when buybacks happen....Warren Buffet does buybacks..
Along with Unicorns reasons of keeping share stability, it makes good sense and in the future the stock wont be discounted by investors so much in the future.
Sure there is good bargins out there, TAP etc, but at the moment, NZO is offering cashbacking + pike to almost the shareprice. Then we get tui and kupe thrown in for free...nice. At least management know what is going on and this makes it a lot lower risk..
Sorry for the very simple 5 year old writing style...study is getting to me. Maybe i should go underground.
AWE still interested in offshore Taranaki block
(Tuesday, 21 October 2008)
OPERATOR Australian Worldwide Exploration has applied for a second five-year term for its offshore Taranaki, New Zealand licence PEP 38483 where, in August 2007, it drilled the unsuccessful Hector-1 wildcat well.
Full Story...
from energy review
Look i do not care if the s/p goes up,down or sidewise as a result of a b/b it is just absolute essential, that if the price goes below a Dollar it nessitates a b/b regime.
I do not now if the co. can hold the bought back shares, and slowly release them to the market at a later date say for $ 2.00 plus, as in Tresory stocks.Lets take sentiments out of this and there is certainly no room for whisful thinking, as much as i too whish things where different.
Also beware of fluctuations in the s/p at the moment as i am not so sure that the present turmoil has ended.In addition my records show the s/p rising before the AGM only to flop back down again in the weeks after.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4735868a13.html
interesting...
Ya, re-reading that it sounds like absolute crap....
"The rock lacked the permeability for oil to flow, and had only become viable because of extraction technology breakthroughs."
So you've got artifical lift for starters. They haven't even drilled yet and rigs are in very high demand, could be a couple years before they put a drill bit in the ground.
Then you have net recoverability of course, which could be a very small percentage of whats actually there.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4736069a13.html
Initial reports of oil discovery "misleading" according to above article.
From stuff.co.nz
A bit of reality perhaps.
Massive oil discovery reports 'misleading'
By AARON LIM - BusinessDay.co.nz | Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Big oil on East Coast?
The Petroleum Exploration & Production Association of New Zealand (PEPANZ) says reports suggesting 12.6 billion barrels of oil could be discovered in the East Coast Basin were misleading.
“The company’s [Trans-Orient Petroleum Ltd] assessment of the prospect for oil is an estimate of potential, not a discovery of oil,” PEPANZ executive officer Pfahlert said.
“It is completely hypothetical.”
Pfahlert was responding to news stories which reported Canadian oil explorer Trans-Orient Petroleum Ltd as having found at least 12.6 billion barrels of oil on the East Coast Basin.
The surveying permits held by the Canadian company identified conditions which could indicate the presence of oil, but it was not a sure thing, Pfahlert added.
“There is no guarantee of the volume of oil underground. The only way of confirming there is oil is to drill. And no wells have been drilled there since 2001,” Pfahlert emphasized.
When I read the original article this morning, it stated that they'd found 12.5M Barrels and that was from exploring only 10% of the permit, inferring that further exploration would yield similar results.
Absolutely terrible reporting.
Trackers
You're onto it ;)..........oil shale extraction is a very expensive process.
Yes, it is being developed in the US, BUT with the help of subsidies/tax relief etc etc, even when the POO was high.
Maybe in years to come but not now.:eek:
It was interesting reading but ...daaahhhhhhhhhh ..not for me.
Oiler
digger - am not in favour of a BB as it signals nzo have nothing better to spend the money on.
further dividend policy development would be welcome.
hows this for a question one could ask [maybe with earlier email to nzo so they can prepare]
what is the deemed cash position in nz$ if all foreign currency was to be exchanged on day before agm and also shown per share.
this is putting the kupe project loan to one side and the receivable etc for the sake of the exercise.
there has been much speculation how much it would be.
in event nzo can't show it for whatever reason at the agm, then how about detailing it in the quarterly report [using deemed position as atday before agm]
IMO shareholders would welcome this info
M
Machine,i can not truely understand your question as by in large NZO more or less does that anyways.My thinking is that in making a value assesment it has to be a range giving probability of various outcome.This would also be true if you were to do the same with your personal cash value,as many things would impact on the accuracy of that figure.Personally i have not had a problem with the rough asset value as from NZo,knowing it is as good as what i could give from my own.This is especially so if intangible assests are to be included,and sales that may or may not achieve previously agreed values.
The contact energy will be very interesting today.Am wondering if NZO is planning to use ACC to ram through there director grab.If so some govt work after our AGM.
digger, in essence would like nzo to make the calculation of what would be the deemed nz$ cash value if all $ converted back to nz$ [obviously leave whatever foreign currency where it is held]
M
Seems like an interesting meeting at the Contact AGM. I also think it was useful that the shareholders demanded a vote on the pay issue before any other matters were conducted. Perhaps the same can be done done with NZO
Hi Nita and other NZO shareholders,
I have just finished emailing Chris Roberts our Public Affairs Manager pointing out the importance of having the director elections and pay issues dealt with at the beginning of the meeting.The directors will be very keen to drag on about other matters for as long as possible and a bit longer to limit discussion on resolutions5,6,7 and 8.Man and woman do not live on bread alone and a quick end to the meeting on an offer to stuff yourself is a extremely expensive option. But it will be offered.
Also of importance is that i may need 5 shareholders if necessary to demand a poll if the CEO claimes the result of a poll is not as we see it.
More later
Digger
go senor digger
the opec president has said today that opec wants oil at $90(at least)to ensure further exploration carried out and says many companies are already shelving drilling exploration now,so really this crisis and the fear of reduced demand which has driven the price down so much will surely in the very near future bite the average consumer in the arse
i dont support a buyback but i do support a buy in another quality producer pretty quick smart while the chips are low
I am right behind you Digger.
Resolutions 6 and 8 have to be the stupidest thing to have come out of NZO since someone said Pike River would take 12 months and $70M to develop!
A quick reminder of what shareholders gave the board last year - a 40% increase in fees plus 150,000 shares to each non-executive director, and 250,000 shares to the CEO. That is much more generous that Contact had been of late, and now NZO directors want even more than Contact were asking for! Fortunately we do not have a majority shareholder like Contact, so we should have some chance of bringing sanity to proceedings.
Looks like it might be a good idea to bring a few snacks for sustenance during what could be a long meeting. And everyone should come dressed for the TV cameras - after the interest the Contact situation generated, I am sure they will be keen to expose an even worse case of corporate excess.
I am also considering voting against each of the directors standing for re-election. If their judgment on the remuneration issue is so poor, then I think their judgment in running a company must also come into question. They are obviously way out of touch with the real world.
From last years order of business ...
Resolution 4: That Directors' fees be increased by $85,000 to a maximum of
$295,000 being the combined total for all non-executive directors:
The resolution was carried on a show of hands as an ordinary resolution.
Resolution 5: That the Board be authorised to issue during the next 12 months
up to 150,000 partly paid shares in the Company to each of Messrs. Foley,
Meyer, Rawson and Scoffham, being non-executive directors, such issue to
occur as a result of the acceptance of an offer of such shares to those
persons in accordance with the terms of the Company's Employee Share
Ownership Plan:
The resolution was carried on a show of hands as an ordinary resolution.
Resolution 6: That the Board be authorised to issue during the next 12 months
up to 250,000 partly paid shares in the Company to the Company's executive
director and chief executive officer, Mr Salisbury, such issue to occur as a
result of the acceptance of an offer of such shares in accordance with
the terms of the Company's Employee Share Ownership Plan following a
determination (if any) by the Company's Remuneration Committee that such an
offer be made:
The resolution was carried on a show of hands as an ordinary resolution.
Well said Unicorn,
Enough is enough. Why dont we link performance to the shareprice in the form of bonuses? Then we all have a common goal.
I've lost my voting proxy card and I am not attending. How do I vote, anyone know?
Email Chris.roberts@nzog.com and explain that you want your vote counted.Have to do it quickly as must be in by 27th.
NZOG targeting Taranaki, Canterbury: broker
(Thursday, 23 October 2008)
NEW Zealand Oil & Gas is likely to spend some of its sizeable “war chest” of about $NZ285 million ($A251 million) getting more involved in offshore Taranaki exploration, or even extending itself to offshore Canterbury, according to broker McDouall Stuart.
Full Story...
snipets ahead of agm - is this an intent to cloud the issues?
M
Sounds like RAY repeated. RAY was also given as a RAY of hope when nothing else was up
Lets stick to the main story,which is the grossly excessive greed of directors. If this gets ramed through useing ACC or something it end up at the governments desk and big news coverage.But first things first and bring on the AGM.
Just sent in my proxy. I voted against 6 and 8, and hope the majority also do. The Contact fiasco is useful in that it sends the corporate world the message that shareholders prefer to attract directors interested in the business before money. I'd like to see no cash paid out in directors fees. Instead, pay them the equivalent sum in shares-bought-on-market. They then have the option of selling immediately to realize what they would otherwise get in cash (and doing so would send a useful signal to other shareholders about the near-term prospects for the Co.), or work to increase shareholder value and then sell them to realize both their fees plus a nice bonus attached to the higher shareprice.
David Salisbury especially is not worthy of a fee increase just yet. NZO have made no discoveries since he took charge - in fact they've lost from their books two useful gas and oil prospects in north Taranaki. Current NZO wealth is due mainly to the past efforts of people like Eric Matthews who are now out of the loop.
true Bilo - although he made Tui happen (even though he thought it was a gas play!).
Hi Bermuda,
At the time of Hochstetter I asked Eric why they were drilling 'way out there' and not the Tui prospect, which was closer to infrastructure. He said that Hochstetter was an oil play and Tui gas. It's a pity they didn't drill Tui then - NZO might have ended up with a larger slice of the permit.
Prior to Hochstetter, the conventional wisdom was that because Tui seismics for C and D sands showed the same patterns as for Maui then Tui was likely to be a gas play. After Hochstetter Tui became an oil play because they recognised that the high quality reservoir sands of Hochstetter extended all the way to Tui. I had a peek back at the 2000 petroleum industry proceedings to check and also noticed that TR was pushing for a 'logical' merger with PPP at the time. Things change huh?
Oh, also interesting to note that Tui was originally estimated to contain between 70 and 350 million barrels (zillion smore if the stratigraphic trap was full). So, I guess we just squeaked in at the lower end. Guess we'd better reward the directors eh?
Tui turned out to be a gas field as well anyway
We're just flaring it away to show how much we prefer oil =p
NZO needs another elephant like permit e.g. Hector, its a bit dull at the moment.
a bit dull alright. When are they going to spend their war chest and not sit back with their measly 12.5% in tui. These guys need to pull finger and get exploring, or start to look at buying some other companies. They could easily buy out austral pacific!
Patience Disco, they can't commit to anything until after the Directors-Fees AGM vote. Only then will they know how much of the war-chest will be available for exploration and aquisitions.
I wonder how much of my hard earned tax money the GOVT has lost with their share investments. I presume they are brain dead with their selling system, only hope they dont belong to the averaging down brigade. Does anyone know what the top price the govt paid to buy the options?. Macdunk
well thank f$%^ our market is closed monday,opecs 1.5 mill cut has done jack **** to the oil price but at least our dollar has tanked!!
There is no direct control by the Excecutive in the Beehive - Equally the 'Cullen Fund' is independent. Both following pretty standard investment strategy. Athough I have wondered why ACC would be such an active participant in the markets as that is not thier 'core' business. I queried that some time ago with the 'powers that be' and just got the usual silence and not persued it. (life is too short to tilt at every windmill).
ACC have $10 billion in reserves (to pay out future claims) and it is that money they invest. Of that about $1.0 billion is invested in NZ equities so probably have a piece of every NZX50 company.
Insurance is their 'core' business but they need to do something with all the premium cash sloshing around around .... just like all other insurance companies in the world they invest it in a balanced portfolio
And look at the increase in ACC levies due next April.
http://www.acc.co.nz/levies-and-cove...8-09/index.htm
They sure did. They bought the options then paid $1-50 to convert. i think they also bought the heads at well above that price and GAWD only knows what they did with PRC.
It would be nice to know what formal training in share trading the decision makers have had. I think the govt should only invest in infrastructure and keep my tax money out of the hands of this sort of gambling speculation. I would like to see them cash out and invest in something like gold and silver when they were that stupid as not to foresee this crash when so many of us were warning of the danger. Even a simple TA sell system would have had them out the market eight months ago. Macdunk
But if everyone acted eight months ago Duncan then would not the sharemarket have crashed then? It probably would have been known as the "great TA Crash".
Somebody with an investment newsletter now suggesting oil heading for $30 barrel on falling worldwide demand. Some oil companies I have invested in have just paid big bucks to close off their hedging contracts to take advantage of high prices.
aarrggh! :eek:
Well that's really the nub of the matter. ACC is not a 'normal' insurance coy - only one line of business and whilst there's cash to be stored, they don't have to replace a CDB when the big one hits. Just find it a little strange to be involved high risk investments - it just feels 'off norm'. The bottom line is that NZO is not a conservative investment.
Casa,
What proportion of ACC's investment is in NZO and the like?
NZO is only a high risk investment for the ACC if a significant part of their portfolio is in NZO and other equities with a similar risk and volatility. A highly conservative portfolio can have a very small proportion (no more than, say, 5%) in higher risk stocks, and still be called "conservative". In fact, it's a smart way to construct a conservative portfolio.
If NZO had tanked, which didn't look likely when they invested, the total potfolio return would have barely hiccupped, but if it becomes a $5 stock, it adds a layer of cream to the overall return.
As at June ACC had nearly $10 billion invested as - so even if NZO went broke only a hiccup
Cash Portfolio $571M
Reserves Cash $107M
NZ Index Linked Bonds $483M
NZ Bonds $4,668M
NZ Equity $952M
Property & Infrastructure $157M
NZ Private Equity $70M
Australian Equity $771M
Overseas Bonds $290M
Overseas Equity– Developed $1,940M
Overseas Equity – Emerging $96M
Other $35M
Total Reserves $9,569M
Thanks to all who sent their proxy to me.I have faxed this info to wellington.Note it is to be in by 10.30 am on monday and that as monday is a holiday the only way to now get it there is fax it. Anyone still wanting to send in their proxy should immediately fax it to 094888787.
Would remind all to consider that if resolution 7 and 8 are approved it also intends to mean your thoughts on future free hand outs to directors will be taken for granted.Will not even bother to go through the painful process of asking us in the coming years.Great scheme--directors are not allowed to buy on market as have inside info but at the same time grab all we get suckered into giving them.And in the future if these pass will not even bother to ask us.Anyone still wondering why the world is in a finanical mess. These people that so pride themselves as being members of the directors association are the industry leader.Woe to the vanquished at the bottom,when leaders like this are at the top.
Stamper,
I don't know why this seems to be such an emotional issue, but that's your business.
However to get the facts right, the shares are not free; and any issue of shares to any directors in any listed company needs to be approved by shareholders.
Also, directors can buy and sell shares on market if they do not hold inside information, make those transactions in accordance with the company's share trading policy, and declare the transactions to the company and to the stock exchange.
[QUOTE=Wiremu;230311]Stamper,
I don't know why this seems to be such an emotional issue, but that's your business.
However to get the facts right, the shares are not free; and any issue of shares to any directors in any listed company needs to be approved by shareholders.
Wiremu
Personally I hope the issue of directors fees and the options dont detract from the meeting like they did for contact-I feel that unlike the contact directors nzo have performed well in difficult times .
I am currently away from home but my understanding is that if approved the CEO and directors only have to pay 1 cent to get an option to buy at a later date(?any time ) a nzo share at the current price plus 20 %.
So say in 2 years time if the directors decide no dividends-we will reinvest all profits back in the company -and prc is sold at a great profit and price of oil is back at $150 us and kiwi is 50 cents-and each nzo share has an asset backing of $5.00-the option could still be converted for $1.40.
Please correct me if I am wrong-there should be a time limit on the options but I dont recall seeing one .
[quote=fish;230326]I should point out the fact that Directors are after the part paid shares (as per the employee share scheme), means they won't have to expense any "free shares" or options given to them, under any AGM resolution.
Executive options must be valued & expensed according to IFRS, & thus open to full disclosure & scrutiny in the financials.
This is also possibly dillutionary to shareholders, so it would be better that they bought the shares on-market.
Here is what my emotional issue is with directors cashing in on the ESOP scheme. Well it is not one issue it is about 5
First it was developed for staff not directors.TR first hopped in in 2005 or thereabouts and as he has had many long years with a few good size downturns thrown in he got into the scheme.The other directors then jumped in.Last year and again this year and every year into the infinite future DS has of right earmarked himself as a starter for more shares.
They are paid to one cent and with full price being take up value plus 20% from date of issue. Well that gives a start date but not a end date.Now no end date is very handy,so it will be not suprise that that will be selected at a very suitable time.And if that end date should be lower than the origional take up date the directors will be compensated by only having to pay 90% of the average at that end date time.That is also very handy.
In the meantime only one cent has to be put down as security.
Now all this is so stressful that we are now also asked to increase directors remuneration as well,just like we did last year and will be asked to do so for many years to come regardless of how well the non directors shareholders are doing.
All sounds to me like the americanisation of NZ directors.But then in the US the directors have done very well just every one else that has had the hard times. YES Wiremu it would be very easy to get emotional about what is going on,but you would have to have a care outside the directors self interest to see it.
Digger
Fish
According to the information in the notice of meeting the final date for the ESOP partly paid shares is 5 years.
NZO AGM
Is anyone interested in having a chat at morning tea or meeting up for a drink afterwards? Would be nice to meet some more forum members.
The Contact AGM was emotional probably largely due to a huge amount of shareholders knowing they were powerless to stop the motion because their directors had the support of one shareholder that held the majority of shares. NZO doesn't have one, or even a small number, of majority shareholders to steamroller remits through. Hence, voters at the AGM should feel more empowered, which means less panic.
Times are getting tough. Directors are part of the economy, so have to tighten their belts when their company and shareholders have to tighten theirs. It's really that simple. If our directors want more money they should be encouraged to go elsewhere.......and good luck to them finding a better trough in the current economic climate.
Arjay please remove last post unless you are prepared to be quoted.As well as buggering off unless they get their own way,why do we need resolution 5 to succed as MR Knight wants pay perks before he is ever elected.Yes it is time to find replacements inside the existing shareholders unless we see a serious attitude change on the part of directors.
I have received quite a number of emails from concerned shareholders on this pig at the trough approach by directors.One of the better ideas is to amend the ESOP scheme for directors so that it becomes 20% above the last option conversion price.That would certainly be fair to shareholders that took up the NZOOD's and put directors with us instead of their current elitist position.
You have to have very serious concerns about how this worldwide directors grab is going to play into the hands of the left.I have always liked best the right but it is in it's pure form a failure and the cause of the present mess.Unless world wide directors learn to place limits on themselves for stricter controls will come back to bite them.
If NZO money grab goes through it will be largely that it was by the deciet of springing it onto us in a very short notice,as per many emails.
Will try to get this subjecr brought up in the leaders next debate
Hi QOH
There will be a number of forum participants at the AGM. Come and make yourself known - it is a friendly bunch and you will be most welcome to join in the discussion.
The Sean Connery lookalike character berating the directors for their greed and poor timing will be Digger. Home in on him after the meeting - he will probably be in the company of a few other forum members who have been berating the directors for their greed and poor timing.
Hi Digger
I don't like your idea of pricing ESOP shares relative to the last options. That might only encourage the issue of more cheap options - and the last ones have cost us more than enough! Perhaps pricing at VWAP over 6 months (rather than one month) and including new shares in that calculation would be a better method.
If the money grab does go through, we always have recourse to an EGM to reverse it - we only need 5% (about 20M shares) to initiate such a meeting. Resolution 6 is tantamount to the directors declaring war on the shareholders - we can't afford to lose.
I am not convinced that resolution 6 will actually be put to the meeting. It just doesn't make any sense for directors to show themselves as so out of touch with reality. Perhaps it is there as a smokescreen to be withdrawn at the start of the meeting to help the other resolutions go through.