7 questions submitted at 2024 IGO hybrid AGM

Q1. It looks like Donald Trump is going to be the next US President. Whilst he is very pro-oil, are we confident that having Elon Musk so prominent supporting his campaign that US policies under Trump will continue to support the transition to electric cars and lithium market growth. Also, if a tariff-based trade war does break out between China and the US, does the CEO have a view as to whether this could damage our business in any way?

Not asked.

Q2. Back in 2021, Keith Spence was one of the IGO directors who approved the badly structured $766m equity raising to partially fund the $1.9b lithium acquisition. With the benefit of hindsight, does Keith agree that the placement component of $446 million was too large, the $320m pro-rata component should have been renounceable and it was unfair to limit our then 10,000 retail shareholders to "overs" of just 50% of entitlement, which contributed to a needless 7% shortfall on the in-the-money $53 million retail component. Seeing as retail shareholders only contributed 6.5% of the $766m in funds raised, will Mr Spence support a make-good Share Purchase Plan for retail shareholder to partially compensate for the needless dilution retail shareholders suffered as a class because the board listened too much to our conflicted and self-interested investment bankers which recommended a structure that generated quick and easy fees for them but mistreated and diluted your loyal and sticky retail shareholders, particularly the 4,900 which didn't participate at all and received no compensation for their lost property rights.

Badly edited down.

Q3. Could new director Marcelo Bastos and the chair comment on the recruitment process that led to his appointment to the board. Was a head hunter involved, did the full board interview Marcelo as a group, or individually, and did they interview any other candidates? Did Marcelo know any of our directors before engaging with the recruitment process?

Great answer explaining the process.

Q4. It was a shame not to have the proxies disclosed earlier with the formal addresses like many other companies now do. Also, when disclosing the outcome of voting on all resolutions today, including this remuneration report item, could you please advise the ASX how many shareholders voted for and against each item, similar to what happens with a scheme of arrangement? This will provide a better gauge of retail shareholder sentiment on all resolutions and insight into the chronically low retail shareholder participation rate. Others have already blazed the trail as this was a voluntary disclosure initiative adopted by the likes of Qantas, ASX, Metcash, AUI, Webjet, Suncorp, Tabcorp and Myer in recent years. You've got the data, so why not let the sun shine in? Your share registry provider Computershare has already done this for the likes of Flight Centre, Webjet and Ventia.

Chair said not but was nice to have some back up from ASA's John Campbell.

Q5. Could the CEO please summarise the extent and breadth of engagement he has with analysts, brokers, fund managers and institutional investors after each 6 monthly results release to the ASX? How does that compare with what the company does for its 30,000 retail investors. Were retail investors invited to attend the recent strategy day? Finally, thank you for offering shareholders a hybrid AGM today which maximises retail shareholder participation. Fortescue failed to do this earlier today, reducing scrutiny and engagement. Will you commit to maintaining the excellent hybrid AGM model going forward?

Q6. On October 7, the powerful AFR Rear Window column carried an item about this resolution which included the following comment: "Shareholders don't mind rewarding successful boards, especially those expanding. But if they look in their Commsec accounts and see the value of their holdings have halved, it takes some cheek asking for more cash to line directors' pockets." Please provide a response and also clarify what is proposed in terms of the next change to the annual fees paid to directors, assuming this resolution passes. Also, did you consult with Mark Creasy before putting up this proposal and is he supportive?

The question wrangler censored this one right down.

Q7. Did any of the 5 main proxy advisers - ACSI, Ownership Matters, Glass Lewis, ISS and ASA - recommend a vote against any of today's resolutions, including the re-election of Michael Nossal? If so, what reasons did they give and will you disclose the proxy votes before the debate on each resolution so shareholders can ask questions about the reasons if there have been any protest votes? Please don't say they are confidential. It is standard for companies to be across this detail on the voting recommendations and inform shareholders where relevant without publishing the full proxy adviser reports, of course.


A good explanation from the chair revealing that ISS delivered the rem strike and everyone else was in favour, except for ASA which voted for rem but against almost everything else.

Copyright © 2024 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved

• share
  Share
  • 
    Facebook
  • 
    Twitter
  • email
    Email
  • print
    Print
  • link
    Copy Link
  • cancel
    Cancel