OZL - Oz Minerals
- Thread starter LeeTV
- Start date
-
- Tags
- oz minerals ozl
bigdog
Retired many years ago
- Joined
- 19 July 2006
- Posts
- 8,123
- Reactions
- 5,469
ASX ANN
04/09/2009 OZ Minerals to offer shareholder sale facilities
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00985218
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ntary-s-pd20090904-VJVZW?opendocument&src=rss
Oz Minerals launches voluntary share sale facilities to reduce admin costs 10:22 AM
By a staff reporter
Oz Minerals Ltd has established two share sales facilities designed to allow shareholders with less than 5,000 shares to sell their shares more cost effectively, and reduce costs associated with servicing smaller holdings.
The new facilities will allow previously unmarketable parcels of shares to be sold on the market, with all proceeds returned to investors for no service cost.
The company said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) that shareholders who wished to retain their unmarketable share parcels would need to notify the company to prevent their stake from being sold.
Oz Minerals managing director and chief executive Terry Burgess, said the voluntary share sale facility was necessary to reduce the company's administrative costs.
"We are pleased to offer this opportunity to allow those with smaller shareholdings to sell their shares on market, at no cost to them,” Mr Burgess said.
Oz Minerals shares firmed 0.95 per cent to $1.06 at 1020 AEST, against a 0.85 per cent climb in the benchmark index.
04/09/2009 OZ Minerals to offer shareholder sale facilities
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00985218
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ntary-s-pd20090904-VJVZW?opendocument&src=rss
Oz Minerals launches voluntary share sale facilities to reduce admin costs 10:22 AM
By a staff reporter
Oz Minerals Ltd has established two share sales facilities designed to allow shareholders with less than 5,000 shares to sell their shares more cost effectively, and reduce costs associated with servicing smaller holdings.
The new facilities will allow previously unmarketable parcels of shares to be sold on the market, with all proceeds returned to investors for no service cost.
The company said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) that shareholders who wished to retain their unmarketable share parcels would need to notify the company to prevent their stake from being sold.
Oz Minerals managing director and chief executive Terry Burgess, said the voluntary share sale facility was necessary to reduce the company's administrative costs.
"We are pleased to offer this opportunity to allow those with smaller shareholdings to sell their shares on market, at no cost to them,” Mr Burgess said.
Oz Minerals shares firmed 0.95 per cent to $1.06 at 1020 AEST, against a 0.85 per cent climb in the benchmark index.
- Joined
- 3 August 2008
- Posts
- 20
- Reactions
- 0
I don't really understand the benifit of the offer: I could sell my holding now and pay brokerage - or i could wait a few weeks and have the stock sold for me, saving a whole $19.95? 
I would rather sell now, then risk even the slightest movement in the coming weeks that would result in me loosing more then $20.
I would rather sell now, then risk even the slightest movement in the coming weeks that would result in me loosing more then $20.Prospector
Not a scaredy cat anymore
- Joined
- 18 January 2006
- Posts
- 2,594
- Reactions
- 2
Companies regularly try to minimise their bookkeeping by removing small parcels of shares. Dont read anything sinister into it. If people dont use online brokerage, then they could pay around $70 through a broker just to sell the shares, so they might say they dont think it is worth it. But a free sale for them might be!
- Joined
- 28 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,472
- Reactions
- 8
... also you may find Terry Burgess (as new captain of the helm) wanting to quickly show some financial control
It's the bit about extending the offer to 5,000 shares - on a voluntary basis certainly - that's a bit different. Gives the strong message that OZL isn't interested in small shareholders. Good thing or bad thing or doesn't it really matter?
Prospector
Not a scaredy cat anymore
- Joined
- 18 January 2006
- Posts
- 2,594
- Reactions
- 2
Well, lets put it this way. If you had two investors, one who owned $500,000 of your widget company, and a customer who owned $5 worth of your widget company, but you have to provide BOTH of them with an annual report (think printing and postage); any other customer notices (think printing and postage); make a direct deposit of any dividends (think admin) or had to send a cheque (think admin printing and postage); notification of AGM's (think printing, postage, admin and then venue hire and associated costs) what do you think your business advisors would be telling you. Jettison the $5 customer who is sucking up a lot of your admin time which equals reduction of PROFIT!
Do you really think that any company is the least bit interested in the costs of having small holdings - all companies would love to get rid of all of them - there is nothing in it for the company to have 'unmarketable' parcels of shareholders; in fact, they COST them money!
No argument with any of that, but 5,000 OZL shares is hardly $5 ( not yet, anyway!)
As for admin costs, it's possible for companies to avoid the expense of sending out annual and other reports to most shareholders although notices etc normally have to be mailed and yes, there is a cost in that. As for dividends, well it's not an issue for OZL at the moment, more's the pity.
I'm sure that OZL ended up with a lot of small shareholders, particularly after the ZFX/OXR merger and I have no problem about cleaning up the unmarketable parcels. In my forty-odd years of investing its happened to me quite a few times and generally its been a good thing, often presaging the end of a struggling company.
Hope that's not the case here
Disc: Holding more than 5,000 OZL.
As for admin costs, it's possible for companies to avoid the expense of sending out annual and other reports to most shareholders although notices etc normally have to be mailed and yes, there is a cost in that. As for dividends, well it's not an issue for OZL at the moment, more's the pity.
I'm sure that OZL ended up with a lot of small shareholders, particularly after the ZFX/OXR merger and I have no problem about cleaning up the unmarketable parcels. In my forty-odd years of investing its happened to me quite a few times and generally its been a good thing, often presaging the end of a struggling company.
Hope that's not the case here
Disc: Holding more than 5,000 OZL.
Have just been looking into the offloading a bit and just spoke with Market Services - they have stated that if you wish to retain your holding (if it is less than $500) you must fill out a retention form and return it to them no later than the 19th October 2009, otherwise the holding will be sold.
- Joined
- 25 August 2005
- Posts
- 124
- Reactions
- 0
ozl
ready to break $ 1.20 resistance. another or a few more days of higher copper prices, a no raise of interest rates or a sniff of "positive spin by US fed could be goin for a run, only wish the AUD wasnt so strong and strenghtining. sorry bout lack of pic, 2 many reds but chart checkers, check it out, opinions welcome!!
ready to break $ 1.20 resistance. another or a few more days of higher copper prices, a no raise of interest rates or a sniff of "positive spin by US fed could be goin for a run, only wish the AUD wasnt so strong and strenghtining. sorry bout lack of pic, 2 many reds but chart checkers, check it out, opinions welcome!!
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 1,576
- Reactions
- 1,453
Announced yesterday...
IMF Ltd announces the issue of class action litigation against Oz Minerals Limited in relation to it's continuous disclosure obligations during the period 21August 2008 through to the end of November 2008.
..have been issued on behalf of IMF clients who purchased OZ shares during that period.
OK I dont get it, action against the company so the shares go up 6.5% and is going up again today?
Can anyone please explain!
Also why is it only on behalf of those purchased during that period, Why not those who held before?
Appreciate any ideas on this, I really dont get it.
IMF Ltd announces the issue of class action litigation against Oz Minerals Limited in relation to it's continuous disclosure obligations during the period 21August 2008 through to the end of November 2008.
..have been issued on behalf of IMF clients who purchased OZ shares during that period.
OK I dont get it, action against the company so the shares go up 6.5%
and is going up again today?Can anyone please explain!
Also why is it only on behalf of those purchased during that period, Why not those who held before?
Appreciate any ideas on this, I really dont get it.
- Joined
- 6 March 2008
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
Class action will take a long time to play out (only making lawyers rich). Main driver of price, in my opinion, is BHP's trouble at Olympic Dam (haulage system breakdown), this will decrease production of Cu and U in short term, putting pressure on spot prices.
jbocker, it's apparently alleged that the company misled investors during this period.
Seems ludicrous to me that one group of shareholders can effectively sue the rest of the shareholders. If there's a valid claim, it should be against the individuals concerned, IMO, not the company. Would probably end up being an insurance claim anyway but then the company has to wear the cost of higher premiums.
Seems ludicrous to me that one group of shareholders can effectively sue the rest of the shareholders. If there's a valid claim, it should be against the individuals concerned, IMO, not the company. Would probably end up being an insurance claim anyway but then the company has to wear the cost of higher premiums.
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 1,576
- Reactions
- 1,453
jbocker, it's apparently alleged that the company misled investors during this period.
Seems ludicrous to me that one group of shareholders can effectively sue the rest of the shareholders. If there's a valid claim, it should be against the individuals concerned, IMO, not the company. Would probably end up being an insurance claim anyway but then the company has to wear the cost of higher premiums.
Cheers Oldblue. Looks like the only winner will be IMF.
Still dont understand why existing shareholders during that period dont appear to have a claim.
Thanks Milothedog, you suggest that the price increase is independent of the announcement on the day, seems logical, why didnt I think of it!
How many debt free midtier miners have got $1bill. in the kitty, a brand new copper/gold mine with low operating costs and 49% of one of the best blue sky uranium miners- Toro Energy, on the books.The OZL share price has risen 16% in recent weeks, with further upside if CU prices stay high. When the market wakes up to the fact that OZL will have to start doing something with the quid in the bank- read acquisition or share buy back or both the run will have passed. Before the old OZL was forced into the clutches of state owned Chinese company Minmetals, exploration around Prominent Hill all but came to a stand still. Now that drilling has started again it won't be long before more reserves are found within their huge tenements surrounding the Prominent Hill mine. Analysts will need to rerate this stock or end up with egg on their faces. One Citi number cruncher had a sell recommendation on OZL recently- the stock rose from $1.08 to $1.275 within days.
Prospector
Not a scaredy cat anymore
- Joined
- 18 January 2006
- Posts
- 2,594
- Reactions
- 2
It's got a hell of a long way to go before former ZFX holders are even slightly mollified.
It has been my worst performer in the last 12 months, but thank god I didnt sell in disgust when it was 63 cents .It's got a hell of a long way to go before former ZFX holders are even slightly mollified.
Lost a lot of money on this company due to bad management & placement of funds. Wouldn't put my faith back in them. Good luck to holders.
