Ann: Results of Annual General Meeting, page-13

OV only too happy to debate this and create an understanding - I agree its undervalued but part of that is the fact that the company does not seem to have got communication to a level where there is common understanding as to how the accountants have created a set of rules around contracts that makes the accounting look like a disaster and distorts ERM's results.

For example its my understanding that ERM signs a C&I contract and will build that into its forward purchase contracts. Those contracts are for volume and price , however the C&I contract is normally only for price - ERM has the details to understand the usage but as it isnt volume contracted ERM has to take any market pricing adjustment even though their agreement has locked in a margin. So by being prudent they in fact have to mark to market only one side of the transaction. That creates its own issues as the country's usage has been in decline for some time and the supply has not dropped so with extra supply the price has become more and more competitive - also you have to have capacity for peak usage not average usage.

I personally dont understand the renewable issue they referred to at the AGM and will have to research that.

My primary concern is that with previous management I could expect an approach - JS has put a lot of Corporate style and control into the business - at its heart it was a trader. does the discipline work in this type of environment - I think at stages in the business growth you need it. However I am not sure if it is now that its needed.

The other concern is that these C&I contracts are generally for a few years - So is it logical that $14 million could be at risk since the results were announced and if it was already at risk than management did us a disservice in talking up 2015 without giving insight into 2016. I think the market would have been softer on the share if it wasn't such a rapid change of events.

There is also my nagging feeling that if the short term incentives included share price was the outlook ignored because peoples bonuses were on the line - no evidence but none of us have knowledge of this new team.

Then we have to look at the changing dynamic of the company - St bakers control it but the founders son left as MD and has pursued other interests - around that time St Baker sold some of his equity - He still has huge skin in the game but is this a trend or is that just re-balancing his life.

Then we have to accept that the company failed in the oil and gas arena and took some substantial write -offs over the past couple of years. Is that a sign of quality of management or just plan bad luck and timing - I haven't come to a conclusion in that regard yet.

Yes the share has bounced back over a period but it also lost its way from a share price point of view around the time it went after the NSW electricity generation assets that AGL got. So yes it issued a lot of shares and ever since those it seems to have had a hangover - slightest wobble and the market seems to drop the share price.

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^AORD#symbol=^AORD;range=5y

I used the compare to check over 5 years at times the comparison to a AOrds is strange the two diverge completely - I cannot understand this. What worries me is that high dividend stocks like this are seemingly to have become very volatile over the past 18 months - almost as if they would be better off not being in that classification as one bit of bad news and the market just sells off.

I am not sure that paying out almost 100% of real underlying EPS is a logical process unless its fully franked. For that reason I am surprised that the st bakers want to let the company payout like this as they will be responsible for the tax shortfall not covered by franking and in reality if the company needs capital they will be in the vanguard of the raising as they own so much.

All thoughts and would love to mull them over with a few shareholders - Lilac is great and would love his thoughts on this.