Fwiw I think the Soco management should resign from the board as I simply don't think they have done a good job for shareholders at all over the last 4-5 years.
As a long term shareholder I feel they have had numerous opportunities to deliver operationally but have consistently failed.
Most notable failures are
-Lack of Commercial success on TGD & millions spent on various wells.
-Several wells drilled in Africa, again millions spent but no commercial success
-TGT 55,000 bopd year end target missed when it was only late Aug 2011 they talked about such target
-Selling out Baulaung only to see months later reserves upgrade & further drilling success by Salamander
I feel the management's judgement is questionable. It is difficult for the markets to have confidence in a management team that seems to be getting it wrong consistently.
I just think a management team with 30+ years of experience should be able to provide an accurate estimate as to when production targets on a big project like TGT is likely to hit 55,000 boepd. And have the ability to achieve those targets?
Why would you set a public target if you could'nt achieve it?
I mean if you can't work out when targets are likely to be hit then why should Investors have any confidence in their judgement as to which wells should be drilled?
Soco is down 13% over the past month, there are 46 E+P stocks that are up more then 10%. Soco has significantly underperformed in a what has been a bullish market the past 4 weeks. It is clear the market has 0 confidence in Soco.
http://www.digitallook.com/cgi-bin/dlmedia/heatmap??&&country_id=1&tool_url=/cgi-bin/dlmedia/heatmap&index_security_classification_id=-1§or_security_classification_id=100148&dataplotcatergorycategory=share_performance&dataplotcatergory=price_mvt_3m&orderby_field=value1&action=tool_submit&tool_id=10&hide_extremities=undefined&remove_nas=undefined&username=Invisage&ac=208992&tc=
I don't trust the manageement team to make the right decisions for shareholders.
I would feel more comfortable if the two execs on the board resigned & the chairman indicated to the markets the company was for sale.
I think shareholders have given the management team enough chances over the past 4-5 years & feel enough is enough.
Disclaimer:
As per our Terms of Use, Stockopedia is a financial news & data site, discussion forum and content aggregator. Our site should be used for educational & informational purposes only. We do not provide investment advice, recommendations or views as to whether an investment or strategy is suited to the investment needs of a specific individual. You should make your own decisions and seek independent professional advice before doing so. The author may own shares in any companies discussed, all opinions are his/her own & are general/impersonal. Remember: Shares can go down as well as up. Past performance is not a guide to future performance & investors may not get back the amount invested.
SOCO International plc is an international oil and gas exploration and production company. The Company has oil and gas interests in Vietnam, which includes Block 9-2 and Block 16-1; Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), which includes Marine XI Block and Marine XIV Block, the Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa), consists of Nganzi block and Block V and Angola, which include Cabinda Onshore North Block. The Company's operations are located in South East Asia and Africa. It holds its interests in the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), through its 85%-owned subsidiary, SOCO Exploration and Production Congo SA (SOCO EPC). It holds its interests in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa) through its 85%-owned subsidiary SOCO Exploration and Production DRC Sprl. Te Giac Trang (TGT) field’s Phase I production began on August 22, 2011. Total production net to its working interest from continuing operations, during the year ended December 31, 2011, were 5,437 barrels of oil equivalent per day. more »
145 Posts on this Thread show/hide all
Telegraph article is interesting.....
Recent big pay revolts :
RBS
Glaxo
Shell
Amec
British Land
Tesco
Autonomy
BP
Smiths Group
WPP
Rio Tinto
Home Retail
Can we add Soco to the list? Doubt it, but worth a try.
ee,
Have you sent instructions to your broker to express how you feel about Soco's Remuneration? I have exercised my shareholder right by instructing my broker to vote against the directors remuneration package.
Well they are saying they plan to deliver the 55k by the end of Q3 - 9 Month delay but Rem Committee still awards execs with 100% bonuses, just seems completely out of touch with shareholder expectations. As for TGD it seems apparent the management were completely out of their depth.
Just amazes me their does'nt seem to be any accountability for the $100mn spent on TGD - I was hoping for an RNS with apologies for some of the decisions they took.
I suggest Soco appoint new 'advisors' as the directors are simply out of touch with the ordinary shareholder. Yourself and others have been talking about news was due on TGD licence expiry, even MadDutch was asking about the share price movement depending on events etc But we get zilch, nada, nothing.
Oh come on ee, TGD is not any old event. It was once classed as a company maker, an asset that $100mn has been spent on. It is only common decency to inform the shareholders of what was concluded on the 30th April?
Sadly, myself and you and others have given the management the benefit of the doubt many times in recent years, to date it appears our optimism is misguided.
Let's be honest with ourselves, neither of us have any idea whether PontOil has challenged management on their decisions and bonuses they recieved, for all we know Pontoil could be voting against the remuneration at the AGM.
I think it is pretty simple really, the question is do you believe Soco execs should recieve 100% bonuses for the work they did in the past year?
If you think yes, then vote for and if you think not then vote against.
I have voted against as I don't think the management deserves the bonuses...
In reply to Isaac, post #107
No. Because it is a relatively minor point and I'd expect there to be extenuating circumstances, which could be identified at the AGM. I believe voting against at this juncture is:
a) premature (at least until the IMS is out and probably until the AGM itself)
b) self-indulgent
c) wilfully disruptive at a point in the company's history where stability is necessary for strength in negotiations
d) potentially seriously damaging to the wealth of shareholders to a much greater extent than the apparent cause for complaint
e) pointless
f) a ridiculous over-reaction from people who wish they could have taken different decisions at some point in the past - and are searching for any scapegoat or passing cat to kick!
I'd agree with that, if it was an isolated point. Indeed I pointed that out to the company before 9am on 1st May. Did you? However, they will have had very good reasons for not doing so and it will be one of a number of items in the IMS in two weeks time. The drift of their thinking, downplaying the chance of drilling TGD, has been clear since the prelims - and the most likely outcome has been clear for some while, most recently in the Annual Report. It may be a disappointment - but it isn't a surprise, it isn't "news" and it isn't price-sensitive!
I'm as disappointed as anyone about the lack of new drilling success in recent years and about the delays in reaching the exit door in VN. However, I am also realistic enough to know that managements simply cannot:
a) know the outcome of frontier drilling until wells are drilled, especially when it comes to the details of seals
b) compel third parties to act in the Company's interests by going faster than they want to.
Pontoil have added 250,000 shares to the 80 million they held a year ago. They have had 4 months to trim their holdings if they were unhappy with the RemCom's decisions in December. None of the other top 5 shareholders have sold a single share, including Blackrock and L&G. If you wanted to be honest, you would at least acknowledge that a vote as you suggest is pointless - but more seriously I believe such unresearched self-indulgence is potentially damaging to shareholder wealth. The right way to deal with a relatively small point on the bonuses is to mark peoples' cards by asking questions about them at the AGM - and then listening to the answers very, very carefully!
ee
It'll be interesting to see how Blackrock view the performance of the directors and how they'll vote on their renumeration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9247055/BlackRocks-Michelle-Edkins-behind-wave-of-shareholder-revolts.html
And to respond in a simple manner I will quote you.....
I will not wait for an IMS or the AGM for management to justify their reasons, I will assess based on the public information available to me. It is management's responsiblity to make shareholders fully aware of what is going on, if they have'nt made us aware of x, y, z then that is an issue for them.
As far as I am concerned the performance over the past year does not deserve a 100% of an already very generous salary. I'm afraid that was the straw that broke the camel's back especially when the share price is down 25% in the past year, they seriously need to get their act together and as a Shareholder I feel I have a responsbility to let them know how I feel by exercising my right to vote.
And if you want to hold anyone responsible for my protest vote then blame the remcom for awarding excesive bonuses and the exec directors for accepting them.
I too have added to my holding the past year, but that is because I see value...It does not mean I am supportive of a 100% bonus & maybe PontOil feel the same way and rather then trim their holdings they will vote against
Spending $100mn on TGD seriously destroyed value and to add insult it appears very little accountability or sympathy has been shown by the management.
No it's not, find hydrocarbons which in turn raises the share price = decent bonuses. I don't want to have a conversation where I am asking the directors to justify their packages, I want it to be VERY OBVIOUS which it is not.
In reply to Isaac, post #110
If they had any thought of that then they would have voted against it at board level - and it wouldn't have been awarded. Simples.
Regarding Blackrock, I would be surprised if their view differed much from mine..... ie management retain the benefit of the doubt - but the onus is on them to ensure they deliver in the very near future. I have every reason to expect them to do that - providing that shareholders don't wilfully undermine their position.
Nothing wrong, as I say, with putting management on notice (if warranted) via the AGM itself. That is all behind closed doors. But shooting from the hip on a public vote is a very very different matter - and (were it done by people with more influence than Isaac) could be extremely damaging. There is a need to keep matters in proportion - and one-off amounts that are the equivalent of 20% or so of two salaries are simply not big enough to justify shareholders getting seriously aggrieved - especially at this juncture!
ee
ee,
Tell the management to waive their bonuses and I and all the other shareholders won't vote against their remuneration.
And this totally becomes a non event, simples.
In reply to Isaac, post #110
I will not wait for an IMS or the AGM for management to justify their reasons, I will assess based on the public information available to me.
This is pretty bizarre even by your standards, Isaac! Surely the point of the IMS and the AGM is precisely to provide additional public information upon which shareholders can make decisions, one of which is how to vote on motions at the AGM, such as any there may be on remuneration? Do you propose that shareholders should attend the AGM with earplugs in case they hear anything they don't know already? There is clearly information already in the public domain, and you may have come to a preliminary view based on that, which of course is your right, but were I minded to vote against any motion at the AGM I would certainly want to have the maximum possible information to back up my view before acting, and the IMS and AGM are clearly key to that.
Spending $100mn on TGD seriously destroyed value and to add insult it appears very little accountability or sympathy has been shown by the management.
I've kept largely quiet about this up till now. It's obviously unfortunate that TGD did not provide the returns on investment that were hoped for. However, if all expenditure on failed exploration it to be regarded as value destroying then the world would run out of oil pretty quickly, and E&P investors would find it very difficult to find profitable investments.
As regards accountability, I have no real idea what you mean. The AGM is surely the place for the BOD to show accountability, and your plans to ensure they do seem to be well advanced. Issuing an RNS or not has nothing to do with accountability, or sympathy. I will admit to being somewhat surprised at the time that no RNS was issued. However, it's also perfectly clear that as no one had any value in for TGD and the BOD had given clear guidance that it might well not be drilled sometime previously, there was absolutely no need for them to do so, and the issuance or otherwise of an RNS on the topic makes absolutely no difference to the value of my investments, other than perhaps by a tiny potential reduction due to the time and costs used in issuing it. As such it's not something I'm going to waste time worrying about. And If I want sympathy that's certainly not what I see the BOD being for, I look for that nearer to home.
Peter
I have attended a few Soco AGM's, they tend to get the motions out of the way before they do the presentation and questions. So I don't see how Investors can take action by asking questions etc etc if the voting has already been carried out. Besides I want to keep my distance from the management and not feel I have somehow been 'convinced' to support their packages.
AFAIAA IMS is due by the 14th @ which point there will still be a month before the AGM. I understand that those that wish to vote via nominee accounts need to do so weeks before the AGM. And if Soco are buying back their own shares there probably is'nt going to be any significant news in the IMS.
I personally don't need to see what is written in the IMS because all I need to do is look at the share price from the last 5 years,
a) it is less then 50% below it's peak
b) Directors have taken a 100% bonus for what I regard as a poor year operationally
Therefore I have sufficient information to cast my vote.
It will be interesting to note how Blackrock and Legal and General vote, they own 10.07% & 3.52% of the shares respectively :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9247055/BlackRocks-Michelle-Edkins-behind-wave-of-shareholder-revolts.html
With Blackrock and Legal & General as well as other institutions/private Investors if we can get 20-25% of shareholders to vote against Soco's Remuneration it will be a good result and totally embarrassing for the management.
Shareholder revolt is certainly gaining momentum :
Jolly good, the system is starting to work properly again whereby if you are unhappy with x, y, z then they can exercise their rights at the AGM.
Quoting the Telegraph Article and making comparison
-Soco Shares are down more then 50% since that period
-The strategy is not very clear, we just made a U-turn on TGD. Are we an exploration company or a Production company? It is rather confusing as D'Souza kept telling shareholders in the Annual report Soco was very much an exploration company but we have'nt had any major successes in the last 5 years and the company has a very light exploration programme and we seem to be spending a few million looking for new acreage but not having much success!
Sharesoc gets a mention in the FT today as well :
In reply to Isaac, post #114
Unadulterated cobblers.
The strategy of SOCO International (LON:SIA) has been 100% clear for well over a decade. It is written in every Annual Report on one of the first few pages. I don't know a single other company where that is the case.
What you are actually complaining about is not the strategy. It is the execution of that strategy - which hasn't been as quick, or free from being disrupted by outside events, as any of us would have wished - or expected.
I draw the parallel with the problems of the UK Government at present - where growth and confidence has been elusive thanks in large measure to events outside their control in the Eurozone. The Government's "stock" has also gone down......but that most definitely doesn't mean that the Government or SOCO International (LON:SIA) management are wrong or doing a bad job. Actually in both cases I think they are doing very much better than their "electorates" had a right to expect - and no amount of protest votes by anyone are actually going to bring us anywhere nearer to better days.....and in fact if they got their way overnight then I'm certain we would all be moving backwards not forwards (and we'd then have a fresh set of trashing around for a non-existent solution).
People are going to have to get used to the idea that the world of magic wands and instant gratification ended in 2008. The answer to all these issues is to stick to the job in hand and to gradually work away at the impediments to achieving the objectives. It is a very tough job being at the sharp end in times like these - and people would do very well indeed to acknowledge that before shouting their frustrations from their armchairs.
ee
ee,
The share price is close to 2008 lows, except that the Oil price is significantly higher now then it was during the 2008 crash.
What does that tell you about the value created in the last 4-5 years?
So if anything the Oil price has sgnificantly helped in atleast maintaining the share price close to flat over the past 4-5 years - Why should the management recieve any credit for an event i.e. Oil price that they have no control over?
My issue is they are happy to trumpet how well TGT has performed, on time, on budget etc etc but conveniently downplay TGD when SIGNIFICANT amounts of cash was spent.
If your going to be rewarded for your work on TGT then take accountability for the failures of TGD! AFAIAA both events seem to offset, but they are recognised in their remuneration packages for TGT but it seems their performance on TGD is ignored when remuneration is considered.
And let's not make excuses like they have no control over the outcome of the results in TGD as they could have walked away LONG TIME ago, just like PTTEP did. They chose to pursue it - a decision entirely within their control.
I WANT to see some accountability/responsibility taken & the best way to do that is to waive their bonuses.
In reply to Isaac, post #116
Actually the best way to do that is to promptly execute the third leg of the strategy! If they can do that then they will have justified the full bonus for putting shareholders in that position!
I am interested to see that you think that it is possible to be certain whether prospects will be commercially productive before spending money on them on the mucky stuff of drilling, seismic reprocessing etc. That is a very special skill that would put you in great demand amongst those drilling in frontier basins in the Falklands, Greenland etc....best get yourself over there and monetise your skills whilst they last.....
The thought has without a doubt crossed my mind, with TGD gone & Phase 2 ramp up due in the next 3-4 months the potential to add any further value in Vietnam significantly diminishes and a sale of SV has been more likely now then it has ever been - the elephant in the room over the last 5 years has always been TGD.
With the 5 year anniversary of 'the endgame' I am reluctant to give the benefit of the doubt.
WIth phase 2 due to come online in July/August will a potential buyer not seek 6 months production data from phase 2? Which takes us into Feb 2013 before a sale.
I would'nt have minded if the management took a big bonus after Soco was sold at £5-6/share....Just feel it is wrong for them to take a 100% bonus at this juncture IMO.
I would'nt have minded if the management took a big bonus after Soco was sold at £5-6/share....Just feel it is wrong for them to take a 100% bonus at this juncture IMO .
FWIW I think Isaac has finally got it right here.
Large bonuses on top of big salaries on top of large shareholdings when there are still questions to be answered about outing value, even when we think we are very close, smells a little bit too much of complacency and greed so far as I am concerned. Especially with the sp at new lows and no dividend to compensate shareholders in the meantime in the same way that Directors have been compensated through salaries and bonus.
Was TGD handled as best as it could have been? How have the Directors been "hurt" for that turning out the way it did?
Yes, I hope this is all immaterial in a few weeks or months time but as a shareholder I have increasing sympathy for Isaac's viewpoint.
In reply to tiswas, post #119
As I've said, I think that 75-80% would have been more appropriate based on what those of us outside the company can see. But frankly we are in no position to judge. Certainly I support asking questions of the RemCom at the time of the AGM - but I don't support rushing to condemn management for what is, at worst, a relatively small matter.
I would also point out, once again, that these matters below (mentioned by tiswas) are completely irrelevant to the question of whether bonuses for hitting operational targets have been earned:
Salaries and bonuses are payable to the people who actually DO the work. It is complete nonsense to compare those with rewards to shareholders - and both bonused parties will have suffered far more from the share price performance (in mark to market terms) than they have received in salaries and bonuses, thanks to their large shareholdings (if you assume there was $100mn "lost" on TGD (which there wasn't in value terms), work out what that has cost the two execs on their 21.5mn shares.....answer $6.4mn, or more if one takes options into account) and the non-vesting of some LTIP awards due to underperformance of the share price.
I don't have any problem at all with the Execs taking the bonus they were awarded. They are not a charity. My only question is for the RemCom - and it is "why did you conclude that the Executive Directors deserved 2011 bonuses set at the "full stretch" target level, when the 2011 production target expected for TGT wasn't hit?". Perhaps one of those who are concerned (and attending the AGM) would like to ask?
ee
Amazing is'nt it, no matter where Tullow go they seem to find more Oil whether that be Uganda, Ghana or Kenya!
Why has Soco failed in this area consistently over the last 5 years? Incompetence?
Why have you invested in SIA over Tullow over the same period?
Because we were led to believe good things will happen in Africa, TGT and TGD.
We all backed the wrong horse, very few saw Soco's incompetence.
In reply to Isaac, post #123
There is nothing at all wrong with TGT. Yes Africa hasn't produced the goods for SOCO (yet) and yes TGD was a serious disappointment (but not because of lack of oil) - but it is a massive and unjustifed leap to claim incompetance when the reality is that Tullow Oil (LON:TLW) 's success record in Africa is FAR ahead of industry norms - and actually one can trace that success back to the acquisition of Energy Africa.
Tullow's outstanding successes in Africa do not make everyone else "incompetant". Compare, for example, Premier Oil (LON:PMO) 's record in Vietnam, or Cairn Energy (LON:CNE) 's in Greenland.
PMO has increased production significantly the last few years and have had very good success in the Niorth Sea to more then offset failures in Vietnam.
Cairn has returned a HUGE sum of cash to shareholders & have been quick to walk away from Greenland, compared to Soco which has taken 6-7+ years to walk away from TGD.
The bottom line is I just want a Sale so we can all move on - The offer is at 278, why does'nt management aggresively bid until the price goes back to 290? Seems silly to just wait.