The Constant Stream

Skip to Navigation Ad header .Content bottom Post message List Previous Next View thread Respond Vote up Email to a friend Neighbourhood Watch Author Elikkos Georghiades View Profile Add to favourites Ignore Date posted today 02:33 Subject FAO bonobo77:Re The Constant Stream of........... View parent message Votes for this Posting Voted 37 times. Message Hi bonobo77, I trust you have made a full recovery and are well. The purpose of this post is to respectfully take issue with some of your remarks in your earlier response under the above title: In doing so I find it helpul to initially set out matters upon which I am sure we all agree: 1) I believe it highly unlikely that there is any person who is completely satisfied with either TK, our BOD or the company's progress. 2) Equally I believe that everyone feels disquiet if not angry at the coninuing poor performance of our SP. 2), No one has claimed any right to censor the expression of anothers dissatisfaction with the company on this bb. You quite rightly say it is perfectly possible, for investors to remain invested and optimistic in the assets of a company, "while expressing dissatisfaction with aspects of how that company conducts itself. However, after numerous and seemingly endless expressions, of such dissatisfaction, in which the same points are repeatedly and tediously regurgitated with the same arguments, it is equally possible to say to another, that if they feel so bad about the company, they can always sell up, This most certainly does not amount to censorship or render the maker of such a statement myopic . It is the simple application of logic, namely that if we strongly dislike something we can always walk away and not have to put up with it. At the end of the day each investor must balance the risks which he / she feels are attached to the issues in respect of which he / she is dissatisfied against the potential rewards which the company;s assets could yield.if they remain invested. When he / she decides that, the balance is tipped, one way or another, it is time for him /her to review their position and reflect upon whether they wish to remain invested especially when: i) It is quite apparent that their own views / dissatisfaction are by no means universally held ii) They have been expressed and repeated so many times before.. ii) There is precious little that can achieved by repeatedly ramming their same views and arguments down other peoples throats. I am sure you will agree that one of the central purposes of bb's like this, is to promote constructive debate . I ask you to consider, how the repeated posting of emotively / provocatively and frequently offensively worded negative views and arguments, about TK, the BOD or GKP generally facilitates this purpose, when they have been almost identically aired on numerous earlier occasions by him / her and others ? I would respectfully suggest, that far from facilitating constructive debate, it actually undermines it. In particular, it: 1) Encourages people of opposing, views to respond in a similarly extreme and provocative manner and (for want of a better expression) the strongly pro / anti TK / BOD lobby to take up entrenched positions, frequently resulting in offensive exchanges and personal attacks. against each other on this bb, to the point where criticisms of the contents of a post are completely superseded and swamped by attacks on posters. . 2) As a consequence the quality of debate is lost as this bb becomes completely clogged up with posts of this nature. Over time (as we have witnessed) the bb descends into chaos, where even posters motives are questioned, and the exchange of insults becomes the new norm. 3) It discourages so many other helpful contributors from continuing to post. After all, what is the point of their continuing to post , when they run the risk of being insulted for their trouble. There are so many helpful contributors including,BBBS, scaramouche, Gramacho, sicilian_kan, to name but a few, (all of whose motives have been offensively questioned) from whom we now seldom if at all hear.. There are also many others like Lost in Lao, Chap in Africa, who have not yet been criticised but who may see little point in posting their views on a bb that has descended to this low level. 4) Equally important, is that it must be truly tiresome and wearisome for other investors who frequent and rely on this bb for such debate, but who rarely if ever post. I would suggest they by far, form the vast majority. I would also suggest, that they, like the majority of us, who are perfectly able to see and acknowledge the pros and cons of our company, are sick and tired of reading the same old (and frequently offensively) worded anti / pro TK / GKP posts, day in day out on this bb. The post written by paulmc1, very aptly encapsulated these points and the 127 votes it received bears testament to their frustration and irritation. 5) The problem of the never ending repetition of the same anti TK/BOD/GKP, arguments is that it, not surprisingly leads others to speculate, on their motives and on whether there is some wider / corporate and sinister agenda afoot. This inevitably gives rise to yet further suspicion, deeper entrenchment, and yet more speculation. I would suggest that the true casualty of all this nonsense is "constructive debate" which for now at least seems completely unattainable. Turning now to your further response to a posters question, you said "that many 'top men' of big companies have been forced to abdicate their position under pressure from dissatisfied shareholders.", and you go on to provide 5 examples of 4 British and one American companies to support your point. However, I am not entirely sure I understand the actual point you are making, for there is not a single post that I have read (and I read many) where posters have sought to deny / censor a persons right to express their dissatisfaction with the company on this bb. But when that person and others continue to reel out the same old dissatisfactions e.g. TK's pay, CG, Transfer /sale of TK's shares, Etamic, Gokana , day in , day out at least since the Paris AGM, with no let up, it really does become quite unbearable .Moreover, the inflammatory wording of many such posts, give rise to equally extreme and inflammatory responses from those holding opposing views, thereby leading to the spiralling deterioration of this bb in respect of which I have already alluded to. I also query the validity of the 5 corporate examples that you cite in support of your argument. In particular, to compare them to GKP is like comparing chalk and cheese. In your own words, these are "top men" (one woman) of "big" companies. I would also add a significant ommission, namely that they operate in a very different jurisdiction to Kurdistan. How can you compare, a young oil exploration (and now producing) company operating in Kurdistan with any of the examples that you have cited? I ask this question, in the important context of the many reasons for the expressed dissatisfaction. Everyone invested in GKP knows or is deemed to know all the risks of investing in a company operating in a jurisdiction where business practices and norms are very different to ours. I would also add a jurisdiction, with so much uncertainty, and instability, where important political considerations (KRG) would undoubtedly override the finer points of a company's reporting obligations to its shareholders. We all assumed these risks when we invested in return for what we hope will be very high rewards. None of the risk reward ratios of any of the 5 examples you quote can even come close to those of GKP. As shareholders we all expect our CEO, to do his utmost best to not only discover oil, but maintain excellent relations with our bosses (KRG), to achieve the best possible value for our investment. In respect of these matters, there are few even from his most vociferous critics who would deny that he has admirably achieved this at least. We all knew that it really takes a special kind of person,willing to get stuck in and soil his hands from time to time to run a successful operation of this nature in this part of the world. For a long time, he was hailed a hero, and I still remember how people used to admire him for his snubbing stance against the city. Not a word (including from you) was ever uttered then about his excessive pay, or corporate governance. Now however, following the successful completion of our litigation, when the sp contines to be stuck in the doldrums, some of his former worshippers, have become his biggest critics and are now baying for his blood. They now draw attention to the fact that since he is not trusted by the city,(whose own moral / business ethics are equally questionable) we will never progress. Let me make myself quite clear, I don't believe for one moment that any of his persistent and outspoken critics, would be banging on about issues of corporate governace or his salary if the sp were 300p. TK most certainly did not help by his transfer / sale of his own shares but Is he responsible for the current sp level? I think not and I am not persuaded by the argument that but for the "alleged" distrust of the city the sp would be considerably higher. The sp is stuck where it is now because of all the political uncertainty between Baghdad and the KRG over the monetisation of its oil exports. I have no doubt that when this problem is conclusively resolved to everyones satisfaction, and exports can begin the sp will eventually recover to more realistic levels. Nobody has ever sought to censor constructive criticism of TK / BOD. But equally when such criticisms are nauseatingly repeated and often in belligerent language to the irritation of many including the silent majority, one should not be surprised or take exception to responses such as " If you don't like it then sell up and move on and stop bombarding us with the same old negative criticisms", for the authors of such responses have no lesser right to their expression. .. I have previously (a long time ago ) before it became fashionable expressed my own disquiet about TK but I saw no point in repeating myself. Having reflected I decided that the risk reward ratio still favoured me remaining invested. Now, I find myself frequently reviewing whether I should remain invested, but it has nothing to do with my view on TK or the company. On the contrary, it has all to do with the concerted and never ending aggressive atacks on TK, the BOD and the company in general. As a believer in the adverse effects of never ending negativity, I find myself frequently considering the enormous damage we may be inflicting upon our investment as a consequence. Thats another long story, I hope never to have to write about. Regards Elikkos ================== Paulmc1, If you don't mind I have copied part of your post again because in my opinion, it summarises quite succintly what I and(I believe) many other posters feel about: 1) our investment 2) The so called two camps 3) The endless regurgitation of the same pro and anti TK arguments 4) The constant exchange of abuse between the two camps and 5) The negative potential of all this mindless bickering and abuse upon our investment. And all of this at the expense of civilsed constructive debate. Its at times like this when I really miss the great analytical input of posters like scaramouche, Lost in Lao, chap in Africa and many, many more. May I kindly ask that those who agree with this, particularly the silent majority who do not generally post to signal this by ticking up the 17.44 post of Paulmc1. Perhaps those that firmly reside in one or other of these camps will at least show some respect for your feelings. Thank you Paulmc1, and thank you to all those who respond. Post by Paulmc1 " As a cautiously optimistic investor I do not spend every day of my life slagging off and risking damage to my investment all in the name of alleged balance, objectivity or to fulfil various psychological needs nothing to do with my investment or indeed investing generally. I'm not a happy clapper, mindless moopet or fawning Kozelite, nor any camp follower ;-) but I have enough positivity and qualified confidence in my investment to remain invested and, importantly, to behave accordingly" Elikkos p.s. Please tick up PaulMC1's post NOT this one. ====================== Just two camps eh? Well I'm in a camp (oo errrr) where as an investor I do not spend my life discussing the equivalent of sunk costs, those costs we are taught to ignore when making investment initiation or continuation decisions. As a cautiously optimistic investor (the minimum to be invested at all imo) I do not spend every day of my life slagging off and risking damage to my investment all in the name of alleged balance, objectivity or to fulfil various psychological needs nothing to do with my investment or indeed investing generally. I'm not a happy clapper, mindless moopet or fawning Kozelite, nor any camp follower ;-) but I have enough positivity and qualified confidence in my investment to remain invested and, importantly, to behave accordingly. GLA =================== some comments in the judgment on Gokana... 41. On 24 February 2009 Mr Kozel established the Gokana Trust, a trust of which Mr Kozel was the settlor but not a beneficiary. On 15 April 2009 he transferred 20,000,000 shares in Gulf, then equivalent to 5.4% of Gulf's issued capital, by way of gift to Emeralp (sic) Trust Ltd, the trustee of the trust. In early August 2009 the trust subscribed for 10,750,000 new shares in Gulf with the benefit of a loan from Mr Kozel, which was later repaid. 42. The arrangements in respect of the trust are unclear. Mr Marcus Hugelshofer, Mr Kozel's lawyer, was described by Mr Kozel as a trustee. There is in the papers what appears to be the trust deed, which provides for a number of charitable beneficiaries and excludes Mr Kozel and the Trustee or any director or employee of the Trustee as beneficiaries. Mr Kozel said in evidence that, at the discretion of trustees, the trust was capable of having beneficiaries which were not charities provided that they did not include him or anyone related to him. But he also said that he issued a letter of wishes at the end of August or the beginning of September 2009[8] asking for his ex-wife and children to be added as beneficiaries although that was, he said, cancelled later, apparently because they were not capable of being beneficiaries at all. Note 8 This was a departure from evidence he gave in Florida divorce proceedings to the effect that a letter was in existence at the time of the placement of shares in early August 2009.