Comments on: RHG’s Notice of Meeting

By: Rae

Rae — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:29:55 +0000

After having watched this play out from the sidelines for a few weeks it was interesting to receive Notice of AGM pack yesterday. The Chairman’s note relating to TII and David Coe was a fascinating insight to the board. The language used is arrogant, dismissive and backs up all the comments made by TII about the RHG Board. The lack of experience running publicly listed companies is a bonus in my eyes, you obviously understand significantly more about how to value them than the current board. If the board considers David Coe’s experience valuable then it is a shame only one director is up for reelection. Perhaps Coe’s contribution is “invaluable” to the company because he is rarely there and hasn’t been able to influence a major stuff up. I’m supporting TII all the way.

By: Ron Turner

Ron Turner — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:20:01 +0000

Hi Guys
Just being a bit cheeky. I am completing my proxy form in line with the sample provided but was just contemplating the irony of appointing the Chairman of the meeting as my proxy with instructions to vote against the re-election of Mr. Coe and for the election of Messrs Johnson and Hoffman.
Regards
Ron T

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:56:50 +0000

If the loan book will not be profitable by 2011, that means that they are going to invest, which as long as it is invested in like manner as the past should mean that it will become more profitable shortly thereafter. Or else dividends will be issued, which means that there should be some announcement regarding this. We have seen no action along either of these lines, only words once they got caught out. Or else they are hiding some other figures, which means we have inaccurate information being fed to us. They are full of contradictions – if it is not profitable by 2011, how will dividends be paid? If dividends are not paid, where is the money going? Their pockets? No action for another 2 years is a long time to wait, and I for 1 am not prepared to wait this long while they whittle away 80K/year in attendance fees. We support your actions TII, if only because we all want to see some return on investment. If Mr Goddard is willing to invest $600,000 just to keep a board member who rarely attends, and pockets $40K per meeting, it must be a tight knit club up there, and I hope we can oust that member to get better ROI. I would love to see their board meetings at present – “CEO. Here are the financials. Have you seen anywhere we should invest our money, Board. No, CEO. Keep your eyes open, until next time. Meeting over”. Quick money.

By: observer

observer — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:15:45 +0000

Quoted below is the options schedule for CEO Mr GW Goddard from the latest annual report. The strategy to maximise value of these options is to retain all earnings, paying no dividends. Warren Buffett has a good discussion in one of his newsletters (2004 or 2005 IIRC) about how such options packages should be adjusted for retained earnings.
————————————
The options are over common stock and have a strike price of 10.0
cents. The options vest as follows:

4,000,000 on 28 July 2008
2,000,000 on 30 June 2009
2,000,000 on 30 June 2010
2,000,000 on 30 June 2011

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:32:43 +0000

Yeah I also noticed that whereas the Board tries to belittle Steve and Greg as much as they can, they seem to have no problem with David Coe.

I mean, geez, the guy was responsible for Allco’s bankrupcty. The only reason why this guy was out of Allco in 2007 was because of the mess he made there.

Moreover, Allco Equity Partners was started in 2o04 and was to be worth at the very least 6 dollars per share in paid up capital. As of today(13/10/09), the share price was a whoppping 2.78. Fair enough, they returned 65 cents of capital and they reckon they can 5.03 for the rest of the assets, but you’ll have to wait some years before you get that 5.03. Maybe(or maybe not) it’s worth buying OCP now, but anyone in 2004 could have done better by just holding cash in the bank.

The only reason why I reckon they didn’t get into a huge mess as Allco was because a lot of the transactions they wanted to carry out(Wattyl + Qantas) didn’t pan out.

By: Jase

Jase — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:21:22 +0000

I find the board’s attitude a bit unfair toward TII, I think the outstanding buy recommendation has had a lot to do with the run up in share price, considering that as subscribers we own around 16% of the stock. This is also another point that the board seems to sweep under the rug. Even the line in the chairman’s report seems to suggest that the 5% of requisitioning shareholders seems to be a made up number.

I think they are still treating a large percentage of their small share holders with contempt. You’ve got my support, and even if it doesn’t result in you guys being voted onto the board, hopefully it may result in a way that returns maximum value to us small shareholders.