KK, no point in going for an EGM. To be assured of a +ve outcome...

KK, no point in going for an EGM. To be assured of a +ve outcome you would need to cover Michael & Co's shareholdings by a 2:1 factor (ie: to also cover against open proxies, etc). I would therefore be suggesting that absent 20-25M shares being lined up, an EGM would not likely succeed.

As it is, at least 9.85M shares are required to trigger (in any event) the 5% limit. Add to this another 50% on account of late interested parties and you would get to about 15M shares which would still be short.

That said, this year's AGM is rapidly racing up towards us and, absent a very sharp recovery indeed, it really is a no brainer that a second strike will occur. Michael will not know how to handle this however given that over at TAU the spin-off EGM was meant to have occurred back on 22/12/16 but was then called off /adjourned to 23/1/17 (which never happened), and then to March 2017 (according to the H17 TAU report) which in any event has not occurred, nor ha sit been announced or advised, and nor has any new NOM been issued (which would now be considered mandatory).

I doubt however that we will have to wait for the AGM as the 2015 incentive program was sensationally ditched in 2016 and the substituted incentive program is now so deep under water as to be considered next to impossible at being achieved in the near term. Without doubt then, Michael & Co will be wanting to come forward with some new incentive program to then take them into 2018. Trouble is, this time round, any such program will likely be roundly rejected by shareholders voting at any future proposed EGM.

Putting this all into context, both the AHF experience as well as TAU amply demonstrates that the board and Chair of both companies have relatively little knowledge or understanding of effective /good corporate governance, the effective management of shareholder relations, or the appetite of shareholders to put up with sub-standard or amateurish performances.

So, whether as a replacement incentive program, or as a second REM strike, Michael & Co are fast running up against performance hurdles that quite simply they will not achieve. Over at TAU last year, Michael got his REM resolution approved but likely he will suffer a first strike on this going forward particularly given TAU's apparent inability to put together an EGM (since Dec), or to keep the market reliably informed about it. Perhaps, then, trying to run and operate 2 ASX listed companies is a bit beyond his control. Imagine however if it were to be 3 listed companies. What, then?

So, as you can see, no EGM required because Michael & Co are already on a countdown to either the next AGM or the next EGM (incentive performance wise), whichever comes first, and neither of them will likely produce any favourable results that Michael might otherwise be looking for. Perhaps then it might be time for him to consider retiring from the helm of one whilst perhaps remaining as a director. Given however that TAU would be retained, perhaps then Michael should seriously consider stepping down as AHF Chair in favour of (for example) Adrian. If he did this, the likely SP impact would be swift, sharp and sustained and upwards of recovering most of what his meanderings have so far cost the MC to date.