Jump to content

sarah

Member
  • Posts

    679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sarah

  1. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    BRR presentation Tuesday, 4 December INL - Emerging Companies Online Conference Presentation - Mr Dave Sammut, Corporate Development Manager INTEC LTD (INL) Tuesday, 4 December 2007 3:30pm (AEDT) http://www.brr.com.au/event/INL/954/36733/wmp -------------------------------------------------------- PS. Interview with Dr Pretorius. This is not recent and not about INL, but it will give those interested some background to Dr Pretorius. http://www.brr.com.au/event/DYL/871/8312
  2. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    Based on INL’s closing price the day before the AGM, the market capitalisation was ~23.7% higher than it is with today’s close @ 9.7c. The wording of Mr. Wood’s reply to a shareholder question (no matter how trivial) is a clear sign that the General and his Lieutenant in the Intec bunker are cracking up, unable to handle the pressure of market forces at work. QUOTE Response (Dave Sammut/Philip Wood): On March 2, 2007, Intec confirmed to the market the payment of A$2.36 million for the first shipment of bulk zinc/lead concentrate from the Hellyer Zinc Concentrate Project. We also noted in that announcement that “given the stable production rate of the HZCP and positive cash flows now being achieved, Intec does not intend in the future to notify the market concerning specific shipments and ensuing payments.†The reasons behind this decision are clear and sound. Information regarding individual shipments is not material or price-sensitive. Cash flows are reported quarterly. The fact that shipping schedules vary has no substantive influence on the company or its operations. There is no benefit to publishing this data – hence the fact that it is not normal practice for mining companies to do so. For the sake of full disclosure, we can say that a shipment of approximately 11,000 tonnes is due to depart port this weekend. A further ~5,000 tonnes will remain in stockpile for the next shipment. But such information gives neither you Mango, nor any other shareholder any benefit. As such, why ask the question at all? It costs management time to answer, and therefore costs you money that could have been spent productively. As we genuinely want to know your reasons, we would ask that you directly respond to this Forum. What benefit has this knowledge delivered to you? Maybe Mr. Wood and his sidekick should revisit Intec’s Corporate Governance statement: QUOTE Principle 6 - Respect the rights of shareholders Guideline 6.1 - Design and disclose a communications strategy to promote effective communication with shareholders. Principle 10 - Recognise the legitimate interests of shareholders An absolute disgrace Mr. Wood. Shame on you. Are man enough to make a public apology for treating a shareholder in such a disgraceful manner ? PS. Also, perhaps you should do a Google on this: “diplomatic writing†Shareholders (those who are still in) will most likely approve the expenditure. PSS. Maybe you should mail Mango a corporate Intec scarf to wipe away the tears from such a harsh treatment by his (former?) hero.
  3. sarah

    AYN

    In reply to: neilb on Sunday 25/11/07 12:17pm QUOTE The reason I took delivery of the bars was because of one of his articles. He has long believed that some bullion storage facilities have been lying to their customers, claiming to store metal that didn't actually exist. This was recently proven to be true in a court case with Morgan Stanley. Yes, there have been some horror stories. However, with government backing of Perth Mint I am not too worried. QUOTE The Perth Mint issues a Certificate to you confirming your purchase, which is stored at the Mint on your behalf. The Perth Mint Certificate gives you legal title to precious metals held by The Perth Mint on either a segregated (allocated) or unsegregated (unallocated) basis. The Certificate is in your name and identified by a Certificate number. The PMCP is also the only Government Guaranteed certificate program in the world, making it one of the safest ways to own precious metals.
  4. sarah

    AYN

    In reply to: neilb on Sunday 25/11/07 10:28am QUOTE ... good point about silver bulls buying the real thing. I've taken delivery of mine and stored it locally rather than leave it at the Perth Mint. Not sure of the benefits of buying physical PM, but it all depends on the long-term intention of having silver. With the physical Ag you have storage cost, insurance and also pay a premium to pay for the manufacturing. None of these cost apply to the certificate program. Of course, with a physical brick of Ag you do have the benefit of a shining doorstop. All I have is a certificate to prove that I have Government backing for my unallocated silver at Perth Mint. My Ag was bought a few years ago when it was around US$4.50/oz approx 5 years ago. The return is not that fantastic. The investment was mainly for diversification purposes, a belief the Ag will go up and could also work as a hedge in the case of a major stockmarket correction. Could be all wrong – but out of sight out of mind. So far so good. Good luck with yours. As for MMN, I am not invested in the stock. After years of being a shareholder I sold out and will no longer invest in companies which are populated by any of the current Macmin directors. Lack of faith and trust in that mob.
  5. sarah

    AYN

    In reply to: woteva on Saturday 24/11/07 01:14pm QUOTE The management of this outfit has nothing but contempt toward shareholders and are arrogant beyond belief Spot on. Arrogance in the highest order. Now the same family also wants to change the Kokoda Track so they can carry on mining in the area. A track which stands as a memorial to Australian Diggers who fought in WWII. Shame on the McNeil’s. As for MMN – wait and see if you ever get a return. Dilution is their game. Been so for years. Also, keep track of all the problems they are having in Texas. What was the REAL reasons for Denis O’Neil’s departure from MMN. Now a beancounter as CEO of this want-to-be mining company. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2093677.htm PS. Those with a belief in the future POS should have a serious look at buying the real stuff from Perth Mint. Google for Perth Mint certificate program. http://www.perthmint.com.au/certificateprograms.aspx
  6. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: deidre on Saturday 24/11/07 02:19pm QUOTE very strange for someone who didn’t hold any stock, IMO you’re spinning plenty of porky pies or BS on this forum which ever you prefer. Deidre let us just stick to the facts and don’t try to twist the real position. Wonder who is the one telling BS here ! It is not me. I, together with other like minded large shareholders were all in the stock at the time of raising the issue of those low-ball long-life greed options back in September. Fortunately some of us had the sense to reduce before getting out all together as INL went further south. If I remember correctly, you were also one of the many who were at first against the proposed options, right? But then, when PW & Coy came up with the Claytons solution of a trigger price @ 25c you changed your mind. Is that also not correct ? QUOTE Sarah, you delivered plenty of negativity on this forum in regards to the options issue, Negativity. so that is what it is. Strange how many have similar views. What I was doing as a Top50 holder was submitting informed postings in public with the concerns of shareholders. Many others holders supported and added to those views. How many votes went against the resolutions ? QUOTE He would have been laughed all the way out of the room if he at the same time had suggested a share buy-back proposal.†Sarah are you serious? Or just taking the p!ss…. Off course I am serious. The buy-back suggestion for an early stage company like Intec with all its near future capital requirements is, well nothing short of absurd and make absolutely no business sense. Said differently was that also not the view of PW ? The nearest you will come to a buy-back is if INL proceed with a reverse split (share consolidation) and end up with a loadfull of holders, who do not have a marketable parcel of INL shares. A restricted buy-back may then be introduced. The simple reason for this is the high cost of maintaining the shareregister. Deidre, I jus wanted to put the shareholding record straight. I see little point in continuing this wobbling. A buy-back will not happen for a long time (years) to come. All over. Final post on this issue. I hope your INL investment will turn out to be a good one. Peace be with you. http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/wub.gif
  7. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: deidre on Friday 23/11/07 11:20pm QUOTE “Sarah aren’t you out of INL?†That observation is correct Deidre. I had the senses to sell most of my Top50 holding some time ago That remaining balance of the holding also went at prices well above the current sp. The direction the sp was/is heading is not hard to predict. If nothing else then a brief glimpse at the chart should tell the story. Interesting suggestions are created when holders are in denial. Perhaps the directors were right when they tried to justify the ‘huge’ option hurdle from 12c to 15c. With the current sp @ 10-11c they have a bigger mountain to climb. By mid 2008 that could be an even much taller order. Time will tell. There are likely to be many opportunities to re-enter INL if/when the sp and chart start to show some promise. In the meantime, investment funds can be working elsewhere and earning better returns. As far as I am concerned Ivanhoe’s stake in INL continue to represents an overhang and could cap the INL sp in an uptrend/spike. As for capital raising for future developments by INL. PW mentioned the Boards thinking and preferences regarding this in his AGM presentation. He would have been laughed all the way out of the room if he at the same time had suggested a share buy-back proposal. Everyone has an opinion and this only one. Back to watching and no more posting on this no-go subject. None of the above is to be taken as investment advice. DYOR http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/graduated.gif .
  8. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: wolverine on Friday 23/11/07 06:19pm Absolutely correct wolverine. An absurd idea for an early stage company like INL.
  9. PROGEN PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED TWP Meeting with Management Highlights Market Opportunity for PI-88 in Post-Resection HCC Recommendation : OVERWEIGHT Company Update QUOTE Executive Summary Management outlines growing market opportunity for PI-88 in post-resection HCC: We recently met with Progen CEO Justus Homburg and VP of Business Development Sarah Meibusch to review the company’s clinical development programs. Management focused on the clinical development strategy for PI-88, an anti-angiogenic and anti-metastatic agent, in the treatment of postresection hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC represents the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide with approximately 80% of newly diagnosed cases occurring in Asia and developing nations. Surgical resection of localized HCC currently offers the best prognosis for long-term survival with a median survival time of approximately 3-5 years post-resection; a sharp contrast to the 5-10 month median survival time of patients diagnosed with non-resectable HCC. Management commented that surgical resection criteria vary widely between geographies and that the utilization of resection as a front-line treatment is highest in those regions demonstrating the highest incidence of HCC. For example, surgical resection of HCC in the United States is limited to tumors less than 5cm in size and, thus, is only used as a treatment option in approximately 10-20% of newly diagnosed patients. In Asia, however, surgeons utilize a less stringent surgical resection criteria and resection is used as a treatment option in nearly 35% of all newly diagnosed cases. As a result, we believe the Street may be underestimating the market opportunity for PI-88 given that (1) geographical HCC incidence growth rates directly correspond to the utilization of surgical resection as a front-line treatment; and (2) the Phase III trial will be conducted across 14 countries, with data likely serving as the basis for approval in those same key regions. Recommendation : OVERWEIGHT
  10. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    Sorry to disappoint a few of you, but Sarah and others were not at the AGM for very good reasons. When you lose confidence in the players who are charged with the creation of shareholder wealth, you have the option of leaving the party. The INL farewell was in the main executed mid October, when the attitude of the BOD was made clear with the details contained in the AGM notice of meeting. At the AGM this week nothing was said which would encourage a re-entry in the short term. Holders/watchers may want to pay attention to the pending capital raising. Once the details are available look at the deal and analyse for share price impact and dilution of current holdings. Will be monitoring the chart for a positive change in direction which may present some short term trading / scalping opportunities as well as short selling opportunities if some decent spikes come along. Did the ‘dissident’ shareholders achieve something by their opposition to the options ? Well, for a starter what made the BOD introduce the 25c Trigger http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/icon14.gif Notwithstanding statements made by INL, it is also interesting to note that only around 30% of all INL shares able to be voted were in favour of the resolutions for Directors options. For their own reasons, which by now should be crystal clear to all, the BOD did not want to re-introduce the 25c exercise price from the previous out-of-the-money and lapsed 5-year options. Worth taking note of that fact and consider why they were hell bend on the low-ball exercise price of 15c. Signing off and wishing all holders good luck with their INL investment. http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
  11. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: sarah on Wednesday 14/11/07 03:47pm This chart link may work better if having trouble with the other link. The codes are INL.AX, HMC.AX & AET.AX http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart2:sym...ource=undefined Are INL holders getting value for money ????
  12. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: catihouse on Wednesday 14/11/07 02:49pm QUOTE As you say, the real test is in being commercial. Have a look at the sp of both AUS [AET] and also HMC, perhaps the closest competitors to INL in Oz, and then weep. catihouse, the YTD performance comparison chart for INL, HMC & AET paints a very interesting picture. http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart15:sy...ource=undefined About AET - Only ~40M shares on issue (INL > 1/2Bil) Only 100K options issued to AET’s CEO (!) and they are not low-ball either. Also worth noting that the total remuneration package for AET’s CEO is less the half (50%+ less) of what INL’s CEO is being paid. Now compare performance !!!! Have a real good look at the chart. (link above) AET’s annual report is an interesting document. For those INL holders who like to be informed, including those who continue being in denial, is is well worth a study tour - cover to cover. One last thing from the AET annual report: QUOTE The performance of the Company depends upon the quality of its Directors and executives. To prosper, the Company must attract, motivate and retain highly skilled Directors and executives. To this end, the Company embodies the following principles in its remuneration framework: • shareholders’ interests and employee interests are in alignment; • the Company is able to attract, develop and retain talented employees; and • the integrity of the Company’s reward program is maintained. Are INL holders getting value for money ????
  13. Progen adding more talents at the top to deal with the next stages of company development. QUOTE Progen to conduct global search for new Directors Brisbane, Australia. 14 November 2007: The Board of Progen Pharmaceuticals Limited (ASX: PGL; NASDAQ: PGLA) today announced a global search for an independent non-executive Chairman and an additional non-executive Director. Mr Stephen Chang, Executive Chairman of Progen, has informed the Board of his intention to step down as Executive Chair following the appointment of a new non-executive Chairman. Mr Chang informed the Board of his intention to continue as a non-executive Director subject to his re-election at the upcoming Annual General Meeting. Mr Chang said he was satisfied Progen is well positioned to enter a new exciting period in the Company’s development towards a sustainable cancer drug development company. Mr Chang added “Progen is now in a strong financial position and is poised to commence a pivotal Phase 3 trial of PI-88 in post-resection liver cancer. I feel that the timing is right for me to step down.†The Progen Board will seek to appoint an independent non-executive Chairman as is best practice corporate governance. In addition, a search for an additional non-executive Director will be conducted to strengthen the Board’s expertise. The Board will look to appoint a non-executive director with late stage clinical development, commercialisation or regulatory expertise to complement the current Boards skills as the Company embarks on the next phase in its development. The Company’s shareholders are being asked to approve an increase in the non-executive director fee pool to $500,000 at the upcoming AGM. Approval of this increase will provide the Company with a fee pool of sufficient size to make these Board appointments. It is anticipated that these appointments will take several months.
  14. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: Black 22 on Thursday 08/11/07 01:06pm I really had not planned on posting any further opinions. I see no need - Black22 has said it all so well in several posts in the recent past. But since I was prompted : QUOTE Black 22 - Posted on: Monday 05/11/07 10:36am People have had enough, simple as that. 1/4ly did nothing, and the AGM will just make sentiment worse. More I thinks about it I don't believe any manipulating is happening at all, just people fed up. And HRP economics will be before Christmas if we're lucky. Bottom draw stock for me now. Had enough and fed up – you are not wrong there. QUOTE Black 22 - Posted on: Tuesday 25/09/07 07:00pm Well, I just want my money back. What a bad 8 months it's been. Just get money back! If that is the aim of investing then a term deposit in a bank would have been a safer and more profitable bet. But the way you feel is exactly how many INL punters feel about their INL investment. From your post, it is fair to assume that you are chasing an increase of approx 100% on the current price. That should take it to the area of the ‘famous’ 25c Trigger price for the proposed options. At that point, you will have no gain to boast about, but the Directors will see an increase of ~66% on the free options. Is that fair ?? Money back just to get out with the skin on the nose and never return. Not a good position for a public listed company with a shareholder base made up of mainly retail investors. A company, which has failed to get proper institutional investors represented on the register. A certain way to ensure volatility going forward. What is it that retail investors see in INL that the institutional investors fail to see? QUOTE Black 22 - Posted on: Thursday 20/09/07 09:00pm Frustrated with INL today. Previous post deleted, just venting re: late ann and cryptic at that. I'll lay low for a while. Frustrated at INL – Black, I don’t think you are alone ! INL in itself is nothing, it is all about the people in charge of building shareholder wealth. ROI is the name of the game. Return On Investment for the real owners of the company. Not just for a select group of insiders. Best of luck in to all INL holders. May you see a real return on the money you have at risk. So long http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/wub.gif
  15. The following was forwarded by a US based scientist. With permission from the author posted to SS in order to keep the PGL board informed. QUOTE Not to keep going back to the HCC data, but I don't want to understate the validity and utility of what Progen did with the data in the AASLD presentation. This is a reformulation of my thinking and may help those concerned with the "data-mining" aspect of post-hoc analysis. In many cases, a post-hoc sub-group analysis involves looking at sick patients and finding "reasons" why some got better and some were not helped by the therapy. Often this involves looking at numerous markers and perhaps trying to determine which patients should recieve the drug in the future. This is sometimes a desperate attempt to show that the drug DOES work in some patients, by excluding sick patients that did not benefit. What was done with the HCC data is quite different. The subgroup identified as high-risk is comprised of patients that are likely still "cancerous". The excluded patients (low-risk) were likely to be disease free for quite some time, and hence not "sick". This is hardly the same situation as the "desperate" case above. What needs to be understood is that the high-risk group is defined largely by the aggressiveness of the cancer. Aggressiveness comes from genetic instability and variation (the source of the "histopathology" referred to in the poster) and signs of recruitment of blood vessels (and possibly immune suppression, although this is harder to "see"). This aggressive cancer is more likely to leave residual disease (and more aggressive disease) after resection, therefore this patient is more likely to be "sick". If a patient is low risk (having a less aggressive cancer), the tumor was more likely completely removed, and that patient may even be considered "cured". There is good reason to remove the low risk patients from the data. Rather than being a post-hoc analysis that excludes sick non-responding patients (typical data-mining), this is more akin to removing healthy volunteers from data in order to produce a more appropriate data-set. They did the right thing for the right reasons. I am even more impressed now than after my first look at the presentation.
  16. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: deidre on Tuesday 06/11/07 01:30pm QUOTE “there is 14.5million on the sell all the way to 15.5c, this is a disgraceâ€ÂÂÂÂÂDeidre, as disgrace for whom ? Market Esq sets the price. Tell your leader on November 14th what you think – you get no sympathy from the Market. QUOTE “is clear that 4m seller is staying put and is no fakeâ€ÂÂÂÂÂRight there in front row and barely anyone stepping in at the 11.5c bid. The old question – what do the 4mil seller know that the ‘old INL SS brigade’ don’t know ? PW will have many questions to answer on Nov. 14th. DS – tell the restaurant to apply ‘slow cooking’ technology for a late dinner. The INL group could be delayed arriving at the table. But, make sure to keep the bar tab going – the voice box will need to be lubricated frequently after the AGM and during the evening. (one way to get a dividend from INL) http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/blink.gif --------------------------- A pre-school they taught the 6-table, but the teacher in the old country never mentioned anything about applying the numeric science and wisdom to something called a “Trifecta†..... Blow it – 12 months to the once-a-year big race. PS. The Champers & Oysters were excellent. Pity about the TAB 6-12-24 trifecta.
  17. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: healyn on Tuesday 06/11/07 12:36pm QUOTE the ASX determines whether an announcement is price/market sensitive, .....but a professional up-to-speed CEO would know if an announcement is price sensitive or not - would he not ? Shareholders would expect so. Time to enjoy a pre-Melbourne Cup Champagne and Oyster lunch. Better have the champagne before the race, just in case the bet is a dud like …………. http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/puke.gif Good luck to punters on the Cup and on INL as well. .
  18. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: catihouse on Tuesday 06/11/07 11:43am QUOTE The signing ceremony took place on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 in the town of Tullah, nearby to Hellyer in northwestern Tasmania. Signing took place nearly a week ago (OK, overseas in TAS.) Announced to ASX at 09:25:54 on 06 Nov. 2007. Was marked as a price sensitive announcement ! Does the Executive management at Intec fully understand the listing rules in relation to Continuous and Timely Disclosure ?? Is the company being managed in a correct and professional manner ? After the option debacle the jury is still out on that one. And now this sicx days late announcement. Strange ! http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/weirdsmiley.gif Is this ‘pick some news’ designed to change the mind of the 4mil seller @ 12c ?? So far it is not working. catihouse - Timely disclosure; another question to add to your list of valid questions.
  19. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: deidre on Saturday 03/11/07 08:40pm The outstanding option issue has still not been satisfied. * The Chairman of the board to explain the justification for the low 15c option exercise price. If the BOD thinks this stock has heaps of upside over the next 5 years (the life of the options), why not just get on with it and set the exercise price of the new options @ 25c ? 25c being the same exercise price as the lapses options these new options are replacing. Are the BOD being stubborn and sticking to the 15c exercise price because; 1. The BOD are over the top in their greed? 2. The BOD don’t think there is much chance of seeing the share price well passed the 25c trigger price? Or do both of the above apply? QUOTE What is it exactly that we are expecting from the AGM, in terms of news? The only hot topics for discussion will be: 1) Pathetic Share price performance 2) Cheap Options Issued to Directors Spot on and that should keep them busy despite David Sammut posting this on the Intec Forum: QUOTE “We will be making a concerted effort this year to keep the AGM ‘tight’, to pass as swiftly as possible through the formal resolutions…..†Treating shareholders like a pack of rubber stamps! Planning on steamrolling the resolutions through quick smart - hmmnnn. QUOTE Thing that gets me is that the INL team are working hard to develope share holder value but the markets negative sentiment around the share price is relentless really. The perception in the market is that the BOD are looking after their own interest first (The McBank syndrome). Despite having given themselves a tick in the box, they have a long way to go in complying with the following Corporate Governance principle: Principle 10 – Recognise the legitimate interest of shareholders. That should read ALL shareholders. The Directors number one task is to enhance the wealth of ALL shareholders. The current board members are failing big time. Withdrawing the option resolutions before the AGM would go a some way in restoring some faith in INL's future under the current executive management and board.
  20. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    If it was reasonable to set the exercise price @ 25c more than five years ago in 2002, why have the Directors now set the exercise price at 15c and not 25c? That is the question they have failed to address satisfactorily in all the communication on the Intec Forum. They have not justified the 40% lower exercise price five years down the track when the company is suppose to be much further developed. The Intec Directors failed to meet there own expectations in relation to the 25c exercise price on the 2002 options. This time around, they want to make sure that they get a larger slice of the pie since they failed in capitalising on the lapsed 2002 options. They want these options issued with a low hurdle @ 15c. The five years, 25c trigger price is nothing but window dressing. In its current form, the design of these option resolutions is a plain and unjust grab of shareholders funds by Intec Directors. They have not earned the Director options with a 15c exercise price. The vote remains a resounding NO and the proxy forms are in the mail. By now it is fair to assume that PW & Co have secured support from the big end of town – Macquarie, Ivanhoe and the like, but a large number of protest votes from the retail holders will make them think twice before attempting a similar trick in the future. --------------------------------------- Could Intec Directors, in a couple of weeks time, be nursing a similar hangover to that the HLX Directors are having to deal with after their failed option resolutions. Note how Employee options were passed but Director options failed. QUOTE RESULT OF GENERAL MEETING 29th OCTOBER 2007 The company advises the results of resolutions considered by shareholders at the General Meeting of Helix Resources Limited held on 29th October 2007 were as follows: Resolution 1 – Election of Mr John denDryver as a Director Passed Resolution was passed on a show of hands Resolution 2 – Election of Mr Michael Wilson as a Director Passed Resolution was passed on a show of hands Resolution 3 – Adoption of Remuneration Report Passed Resolution was passed on a show of hands Resolution 4 – Issue of Incentive Options to Mr Greg Wheeler Defeated Resolution was defeated based on proxies received Resolution 5 – Issue of Incentive Options to Mr Michael Wilson Defeated Resolution was defeated based on proxies received Resolution 6 – Issue of Incentive Options to Mr John denDryver Defeated Resolution was defeated based on proxies received Resolution 7 – Issue of Incentive Options to Mr Gordon Dunbar Defeated Resolution was defeated based on proxies received Resolution 8 – Issue of Incentive Options to Helix Employees Passed Resolution was passed based on
  21. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: catihouse on Monday 22/10/07 02:42pm QUOTE I've just sent INL a number of questions for posting on the INL forum on directors remuneration,.................... catihouse, after having done your homework you asked some very valid question on the INL Forum some days ago. Question many shareholders would like an answer to. The problem is that Intec insiders still seem to have problems providing answers to your well-formulated questions. You would have expected that a competent management, with the finger on the corporate pulse, would have been able to “respond fully and thoroughly†by now. Unless your questions found their way to the too-hard basket or the replies are hidden somewhere else on the web-site. If replies were only e-mailed back to you and not made public on the INL web-site, could you please inform this board accordingly. Tks.
  22. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: mango63 on Tuesday 23/10/07 11:35am QUOTE If so he may be good as another director. Another Director - what http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/icon14.gif Certainly hope you mean as a replacement Director. This tin-pot company (Mrkt. Cap <$70mil) is top heavy as it is. Enumerate have been posting some very valid points and observations. The BOD are well adviced to take notice. Also, no need to keep pumping the history lesson. Most posters here have a good understanding of INL’s past achievements and failures. QUOTE Have you ever met them? Have you spoken to them? I suggest that you do before casting more aspersions about their behaviour. From that, one can only assume that words can buy your vote. Many others would like to see the BOD announce some positive action and provided tangible results, which in turn will create increased shareholders wealth. That is the name of the game – tangible benefits to ALL shareholders and not just to a few on the inside.
  23. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: ericson on Monday 22/10/07 04:49pm QUOTE You may have noticed that a condition placed on the optionsis that they can't be exercised until the 20 day WAP of shares is 25c. How could anyone miss that after Mr. Wood’s statement about a 66% premium over the exercise price. LOL That statement was from the same person who will have us believe this: QUOTE As such, the cumulative weighted average cost per share has been 10.77 cents, assuming a starting point of 20 cents per share at the time of the IPO. Thus, any comparison to the IPO price of 20 cents per share is effectively irrelevant. To suggest the above is so ridiculous and misleading that it is not even worthy of a reply other than to quote Abraham Lincoln, who said this: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the timeâ€ÂÂÂÂÂ. The real concern here is that the MD/CEO of a company can make such a grossly misleading analysis and statement. The language and the tone in some of the replies on the Intec Forum is very “interesting†to say the least. It surely looks like they feel the pressure from shareholders voicing their opinions (how dare they) about the ill-conceived resolutions about the unjust low-ball long life options. Are they losing the plot in the Intec bunker ?
  24. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: mango63 on Monday 22/10/07 02:37pm QUOTE]While everyone bags this stock there is no hope of it ever going anywhere in a hurry. Perhaps everyone with their eyes open feel they have very good reasons to ‘bag’ (a Mango expression) the Directors who are charged with the running of the company on behalf of the owners. The ASX market set the value of the stock. Even with the repetitive stock ramping by a couple of individuals on various boards, right now @ 12c p/s, investors see this company being worth only around $67mil. No reason to mention the awful looking INL chart. Clearly, the qtr. report released today was not inspiring enough for ‘punters’ to have a stab at these levels. Could this stock be heading towards the 10cents mark? That would give the Directors an opportunity top utter these words: “Who is complaining about the 5-year option exercise price @ 15c? With the shares @ 10c we are looking at a 50% premium just to reach the exercise price of 15c. (on-the-money)†LOL
  25. sarah

    SDV - SCIDEV LTD

    In reply to: diana on Monday 22/10/07 01:35pm QUOTE Hmmmm ... $61,250.00 per week for admin and corporate overheads. Does that seem a lot to anyone else? Diana, the very high Intec administration cost was previously highlighted by Enumerate. This is one of several posts he made on the subject; Posted on: Thursday 11/10/07 05:04am QUOTE Since the company spends over 5x on administration costs over R&D costs - I wonder if it is fair to suggest the options scheme is rewarding 5 x more Administrators, for administration than Researchers for R&D? That is alot of typing, filing ... Maybe it is about sitting around in remuneration committees dreaming up ways to pay themselves more? Speaking of "monkeys on the back" - what about the role of MBL? Have we got to the bottom of the true costs with the MBL financing package (interest, options)? Meanwhile, thank goodness that Polymetals are there to "do the business". Regarding the resolutions for non-executive options. One would have to wonder what the rational (if any) is regarding the allocation. The Chairman, Ian Ross, will be awarded (if approved) 500,000 options. The Chairman was in the top board position for the full financial year. (the period for which these options (if approved) are being awarded. Trevor Jones was on the board for seven (7) months of the financial year. For that it is proposed to award him with 150,000 options. But it is proposed that James Bell, who was only on the board for two (2) months in the past financial year from 1 May, will be handed 300,000 for a couple of months as an Intec Director. And the logic is ………………………………………………………………………?? If Bell is so valuable to Intec that he deserves 300,000 options for only two months on the board, perhaps they should look at replacing Ross and Jones with someone as smart as Bell ? Or, are there some information lacking regarding this – only the insiders will know the full story. Time to make some crosses on the Proxy forms and shoot the forms off to the share register. Make sure to make your vote count in order to send a clear message to the BOD from the real owners of the company - you the shareholders. On page 72 of the annual report under Corporate governance Principal 10 the author of the report gave the the Board of Directors a tick for having complied with this principal: “Recognise the legitimate interest of shareholders†Hmmmnn !! http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/thumbdown.gif
×
×
  • Create New...