ShareholdersUnite Forums
Questions - Printable Version

+- ShareholdersUnite Forums (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Companies (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: InterOil Forum (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Questions (/showthread.php?tid=4384)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: Questions - Gator - 08-14-2013

The questions aren’t just with “The Exxon Deal”. A major question is why was Collin Visaggio being so evasive? Why not point out that 65% of the quarterly loss was payment to officers who retired. “During the six months ended 30 June, 2013, two of our executive officers retired. The compensation paid or payable to these officers upon their termination was a total of $8,700,000.”

Collin also was silent on the payment to Mitsui. Why? “On July 3, 2013, we paid Mitsui $6.3 million in relation to the call option, and $9.5 million on July 31, 2013 being the first of three equal installments in relation to Mitsui’s share of capital expenditure incurred, and the repayment of the unsecured loan, together with interest thereon. The remaining two installments will be paid on August 31, 2013 and September 30, 2013 respectively.”

The entire conference call was a clear as mud.



RE: Questions - Palm - 08-14-2013

"Saying, " We are happy with the progess in our exclusive negotiations with Exxon and are confident of a successful outcome" would have been enough to give some reassurance that things are ok"

But they really can't/shouldn't say that because that's what's gotten them into trouble in the past. Their disclosures elsewhere (Forward looking, MD&A, etc) state that discussions are going on, and then say they can't guarantee (or whatever) that these talks will result in any agreements. It's supposed to be an almost worst case scenario so that the "buyer" is investing with all risks laid out. Leading investors on is what attorneys want to avoid in case something doesn't pan out. That's how shorts use fear to affect pps. They assume the worst and know too many retail investors are overly optimistic. And it's overly optimistic longs who bring shareholder suits usually IMO. So corporate attorneys craft the disclosures and try and get management to be very guarded in what they say to the positive side. Hession showed us today that he understands all of this; he's a seasoned veteran. That's why we see the glowing comments to this today by Pavel and Evan; it's a relief for them to have someone saying only what's necessary.

RE: Questions - Dmarque - 08-14-2013

'Gator' pid='27092' datel Wrote:

The questions aren’t just with “The Exxon Deal”. A major question is why was Collin Visaggio being so evasive? Why not point out that 65% of the quarterly loss was payment to officers who retired. “During the six months ended 30 June, 2013, two of our executive officers retired. The compensation paid or payable to these officers upon their termination was a total of $8,700,000.”

Collin also was silent on the payment to Mitsui. Why? “On July 3, 2013, we paid Mitsui $6.3 million in relation to the call option, and $9.5 million on July 31, 2013 being the first of three equal installments in relation to Mitsui’s share of capital expenditure incurred, and the repayment of the unsecured loan, together with interest thereon. The remaining two installments will be paid on August 31, 2013 and September 30, 2013 respectively.”

The entire conference call was a clear as mud.

INCREDIBLE!  What is so hard to understand about not being able to speak about a deal that is in the works.  There are many parties, legal issues and negotiations in flux involved here.  Characterizing this is being evasive or silent when asked on specifics that CAN NOT BE DISCUSSED AT THIS TIME.......is misleading at best.  Get off it and let this deal run at the speed it has to in order to be done correctly.......the sensationalistic statements being made here are not constructive and are doing nothing to help matters.



RE: Questions - Palm - 08-14-2013

'Gator' pid='27092' datel Wrote:

The questions aren’t just with “The Exxon Deal”. A major question is why was Collin Visaggio being so evasive? Why not point out that 65% of the quarterly loss was payment to officers who retired. “During the six months ended 30 June, 2013, two of our executive officers retired. The compensation paid or payable to these officers upon their termination was a total of $8,700,000.”

Collin also was silent on the payment to Mitsui. Why? “On July 3, 2013, we paid Mitsui $6.3 million in relation to the call option, and $9.5 million on July 31, 2013 being the first of three equal installments in relation to Mitsui’s share of capital expenditure incurred, and the repayment of the unsecured loan, together with interest thereon. The remaining two installments will be paid on August 31, 2013 and September 30, 2013 respectively.”

The entire conference call was a clear as mud.

Again, this is the "shift" that many have mentioned.  The items you mentioned were from their financials.  The financials, MD&A and the earnings release itself are all corporate attorneys really want "said".  The CC before 2000 used to be closed to the public but regulation FD and the internet opened things up.  Used to be primarily analysts and institutional investors so they could get some color.  With things so open IMO attorney view is "Read the financials and disclosures (including the MD&A) for what you really need and get little from management in a CC." CCs can be a mine field unless kept to basics.



RE: Questions - Gator - 08-14-2013

If someone asks a question on the call (they don't let just anyone ask questions) and the CFO ducks it, I think it is a problem. Add in the fact that InterOil didn't release the earnings on the correct day, and the fact we are 81 days into exclusive talks after "we should know more in 60 days" are all reasons for InterOil to be worth $400 million less today than yesterday. Big drops on heavy volume rarely occur on good news.



RE: Questions - Palm - 08-14-2013

'Gator' pid='27101' datel Wrote:

If someone asks a question on the call (they don't let just anyone ask questions) and the CFO ducks it, I think it is a problem. Add in the fact that InterOil didn't release the earnings on the correct day, and the fact we are 81 days into exclusive talks after "we should know more in 60 days" are all reasons for InterOil to be worth $400 million less today than yesterday. Big drops on heavy volume rarely occur on good news.

Maybe, but if you read this:

http://www.wsgr.com/attorneys/BIOS/PDFs/bochner0308.pdf,

you get an idea of the issues involved around the legalities of quarterly earnings releases and CCs.  Look especially at page 8, Exhibit 1—Schedule of Actions for Earnings Release. It gives a real flavor for what goes on behind the scenes in getting earnings out.  And the document after that discusses different legal pitfalls of CCs and calls with individual investors.  Management most of the time would love to "tell all", but we've been on the end of that too.  Things don't go as planned and the pps tanks.  "Tell it when it's legally required" is how I think we will have things going forward.  That's the way Exxon works, and I think that's what we'll see with IOC from here, especially in their dealings with bigs like Exxon.  The good thing is big pops are more likely to happen when things are handled this way.  No matter which way they go they get heat, so better to underpromise and overperform.



RE: Questions - johnwgrant - 08-14-2013

'Palm' pid='27104' datel Wrote:

'Gator' pid='27101' datel Wrote:

If someone asks a question on the call (they don't let just anyone ask questions) and the CFO ducks it, I think it is a problem. Add in the fact that InterOil didn't release the earnings on the correct day, and the fact we are 81 days into exclusive talks after "we should know more in 60 days" are all reasons for InterOil to be worth $400 million less today than yesterday. Big drops on heavy volume rarely occur on good news.

Maybe, but if you read this:

http://www.wsgr.com/attorneys/BIOS/PDFs/bochner0308.pdf,

you get an idea of the issues involved around the legalities of quarterly earnings releases and CCs.  Look especially at page 8, Exhibit 1—Schedule of Actions for Earnings Release. It gives a real flavor for what goes on behind the scenes in getting earnings out.  And the document after that discusses different legal pitfalls of CCs and calls with individual investors.  Management most of the time would love to "tell all", but we've been on the end of that too.  Things don't go as planned and the pps tanks.  "Tell it when it's legally required" is how I think we will have things going forward.  That's the way Exxon works, and I think that's what we'll see with IOC from here, especially in their dealings with bigs like Exxon.  The good thing is big pops are more likely to happen when things are handled this way.  No matter which way they go they get heat, so better to underpromise and overperform.

I'm looking forward to the OVERPERFORM !!!   Smile



RE: Questions - Palm - 08-14-2013

Agree; and with this shift in operation it can come any time and I bet when it happens the PRs will be much more clear

RE: Questions - Gator - 08-14-2013

'Palm' pid='27107' datel Wrote:Agree; and with this shift in operation it can come any time and I bet when it happens the PRs will be much more clear

OK.  We live for a better day.



RE: Questions - Palm - 08-14-2013

Here's another article on how scripted CCs normally are. One gets the sense that it was VERY intentional that the CC was "guarded". This was a 180 degree swing from any prior IOC CC. Could it be just the new CEO who's been there for just over a month? It appears some attorneys ( either just IOC's or IOC and XOM's) made it very clear the leash was very short on what could be commented on. The fact that Hession was free to state that IOC has the biggest find in Asia in the last 20 years (sounds like a comparison to Arun), but yet could say NOTHING about any deals other than they are still exclusive and ongoing, is a bit telling. My guess is that Exxon very much controlled what could/could not be said.

Here's the article:

"Why aren’t journalists allowed to ask questions on earnings calls?
by KBlessing

The quarterly earnings call is much more than a casual conversation among a company’s executives, analysts, investors and the media — it’s a carefully scripted dialogue that is practiced well in advance of a call.
The planning and preparation that goes into an earnings call allow little room for journalists to fire questions that may throw an executive off message or make them appear ignorant about a topic in front of a large audience that has the power to push a company’s stock price upward or send it plummeting.
In fact, many publicly traded companies ban business journalists from asking questions during the call at all, and direct them to a specific public relations contact following the call for any follow-up questions. However, oftentimes analysts are permitted to ask questions on the live call.
So, then, why are business journalists prevented from asking executives questions during the call? And why are analysts allowed? Is this a smart tactic?
An Exclusive Club
Prior to 2000, quarterly conference calls were primarily reserved for large investors and analysts, and journalists, along with small investors, were often not even permitted to join in the earnings call. Many companies participated in selective disclosure during these calls, giving some investors an advantage over others.
However, in 2000, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) mandated through Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) that publicly traded companies must disclose material information to everyone at the same time. Therefore, publicly traded companies were forced to open their earnings calls to everyone, including journalists.
Even though others are now allowed to dial in and listen to these calls, there is still a sense of exclusivity, and the companies frequently cater to a select group of listeners.
The company earnings calls are held for the benefit of institutional investors and analysts covering the company for investment banks, Sapna Maheshwari, a business reporter at BuzzFeed said in an email on Thursday. The analysts, she said, who ask questions on the calls typically represent this cohort of people, which is why they are provided with greater access.
The Differencej
“Analysts often ask a lot of softball questions and offer many congratulations before saying anything on the calls,” Maheshwari said. “They are often scared of losing access.”
Investor relations practitioners anticipate the type of Q&A from analysts, and rehearse the questions with executives in advance. Further, some companies screen analysts in advance for the questions that they may ask through one-on-one emails and phone calls, according to an article from Inside Investor Relations. The investor relations team then often prepares a documented and suggested answers for possible questions that may come up during the Q&A portion of the call.
It’s possible that companies are better able to anticipate the questions analysts may ask, and that they allow them greater access for this reason. This isn’t to say that analysts won’t fire pointed questions; many have on occasion.
Lois Boynton, a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication and former public relations professional, offers additional reasons for why companies provide analysts access to top executives during earnings calls while barring business journalists.
“One argument is that they just don’t want to answer the business journalists’ questions,” Boynton said in an email on Thursday.
“The reputation journalists have for being adversarial probably doesn’t endear them with companies. My guess is that the argument would be couched as their desire to use the limited time they have to talk with those who make decisions [analysts] and who they may feel are better informed.”
Adversarial topics are ones that public relations professionals take painstaking measures to avoid during conference calls that are being closely monitored by those who have the ability to influence the market, and why so much preparation goes into calls. One slip-up could have a significantly negative effect for a company.
Boynton also provided an alternative explanation, and said that companies may also not want journalists asking questions because they don’t want analysts to hear their questions and be influenced by them.
“What is the journalist asks something that could call the company’s reputation into question,” Boynton said. “Would that affect what the analysts do?”
Many companies justify the practice of not allowing journalists to ask questions during the earnings call because they defer them to the public relations department following the conference call, Boynton said.
Working at Bloomberg News last summer, I found this often to be the case. Some companies, Yum! Brands Inc. in particular, were excellent at fielding questions from reporters immediately following an earnings call, while it was nearly impossible to get in touch with others.
“There’s a misconception that is reinforced when the company shuttles the reporter to the PR person – the message is that the public relations person’s role is to keep journalists away from those sources who can answer their questions,” Boynton said. “Although there are PR practitioners who have that role, most see their role as opening doors to the exec level.”
One of the only companies that allow reporters to ask questions during the actual call is News Corp., hosting separate sessions for analysts and journalists to ask question.
“I haven’t run across companies that allow journalists to ask questions on what I cover [retail],” Maheshwari said. “In fact, there is only a handful of companies that are good about putting me in touch with executives.”
Should more companies open up earnings calls to journalists and be more transparent, like News Corp. or is it smart to limit questions to analysts during these sessions?"