Didn't get much contrition or explanation from September's EGM...

Didn't get much contrition or explanation from September's EGM regarding the sale of B4M so I thought I'd attend Friday's AGM to give them another go.

What follows are my impressions of what occurred Friday. No-one should act upon anything they read here.

I guess there were about 15-20 people in attendance. Some of those included the lawyers, auditor and general hangers-on so I guess no more then a handful of them were shareholders. All the board were there, including a tie-less Ten-Bag Tony. In attendance was also the well paid, part-time geo. Those of you who have read the annual reports over the years will know this guy has done very well out of AGS.

JD basically read out the chairman's address as released to the ASX. Riveting stuff as you can imagine.

They then moved onto the business of the meeting. Some of you may recall they received a first-strike last year, so there was quite a bit of discussion around the remuneration report. A shareholder asked about the appropriateness of salaries and other admin considering the reduced scale of AGS. Well, that got them defensive.

They all had a bit of a go justifying their salaries.

JD:
- approx every 2nd year they have an "independent assessment"
- tend to place themselves in middle of the range, don't want to be at bottom as "non-retentive" (my reaction: lolololololololololol) or at top of the range because of "perceptions" (JD didn't really flesh this out but we can guess what he means)
- conduct exercise again early 2016, remun might decrease on advice of "independent report", but they will keep in mind that their activities might increase quickly (my translation: don't hold your breathe waiting for pay cuts)
- regarding other admin costs, been "very lucky" to share premises with other listed companies (my reaction: lololololololololololol)

The original questioner then had another go at pointing out the ridiculous level of salaries compared to peer companies with the same market cap.

Ten-bag Tony hasn't had a lot to say at the AGMs I've attended, but even he weighed in here.
- Doing due diligence on a whole bunch of projects over the next few months, claims they have a 20-year track record of doing deals. If they don't "do a deal", they'll look at cutting salaries. (My translation: they'll find something (if Chile flops). They need to, in order to justify their salaries)

JD got the violin out:
- if the directors leave (my reaction: yeah sure they would. My other reaction: please go!), he couldn't replace them with reduced salary levels
- owes a lot to other directors for having stayed around through the "bitter period"
- been in supreme court 5 years running, paperwork and stress, anguish coming back from shareholders, not easy

IG also had a go backing up JD:

- large shareholding means he's committed to AGS
- JD, TL, BT didn't have to stay
- first time been in a witness box for 3 days, questioned by the "number one questioner in the country", the only reason he "pulled through" was "win, lose or draw, I come out with integrity which is what I believe I have"
- "Gone through hell", "difficult, traumatic period" (my reaction: try being a friggin' shareholder with no salary backup and no billionaire daddy if you want stress)
- out there looking
- remuneration has been discussed, will be whatever is "fair and reasonable"

Shareholder asked about cash balance versus market cap versus placement resolution & perhaps better to buyback stock, could turn 50c pieces into dollar bills (gee, where have I heard that analogy before) Shareholder seems to be implying placement resolution is confusing the market regarding where AGS is going and market can't figure out how the board is thinking about capital management.

JD: just a standard resolution, doesn't mean we're going to use it

SJ: can't dictate strategy here

JD: fair question regarding mc v cash balance etc, but let's move on!

Other resolutions all passed after a quite formal, lengthy process. Had to call a poll for resolutions 1 & 5. Whilst the poll was being tallied, SJ gave his presentation (as released to the ASX):

- did some exploration work last year despite money constraints
- 2D discovery, expected copper, uranium was unexpected
- Bigger copper mines to north
- area tightly held, watching for tenements coming up
- if make discovery, infrastructure is in the area that they believe they can negotiate to use
- drill up to 10 holes, if make discovery have strike extensions to test
- acknowledge it is grassroots exploration
- claim being watched by Chile's answer to BHP (my reaction: )
- been there 2.5 - 3 years, not recent despite shareholders questioning the move
- believe Chile potentially very good

WA
- SJ background gold/nickel WA
- looked at many opportunities, can't discuss because of confidential agreements (my reaction: lololololololol), but looked at large goldfields with mills but haven't measured up
- former high grade mine in the area
- Mincor drill results shallow (i.e not fully tested)
- some more discussion about the other tenements they've pegged
- in regards to other tenement, believe the owner drilled in wrong spot
- expect tenements to be granted in 4 to 6 months

So there you go, in summary, they've picked up some ground others have discarded. You can decide for yourself who's interpretation is most likely to be correct.

Shareholder question:

SH: Any further capital returns?

- Had anticipated 15c distribution
- concerned about tax positions of shareholders and company

BT chimed in something about tax and continuity tests after it appeared JD might be going down wrong path.

IG: Taken safe course in handing back money as adverse decision from tax department may have resulted in needing to raise capital or directors considered liable for paying shareholders' tax. (He almost seemed indignant at that prospect)

SH: What's the board's position post finalisation of tax position?

- lots of distressed microcaps who can't raise capital with good, tightly held ground that have spending obligations
- are going to see opportunities arise

(My translation: you're not going to see another cent)

Resolution 1 passed, resolution 5 not needed.

Need to boot out shareholders as the room needed. Meeting lasted about 90 mins. (From memory, last years' was 2 hours)

PS: some of you may recall that from a question at the EGM that there was some discussion of a consolidation. No such discussion this time so make of that what you will.