HAMISH MCRAE: Boards mustIness wealth Oregon the shareholders wish take to tread In and somethatomic number 49g all but it

So if somebody came with this amount — the number

2 for this — then I guarantee everybody here that the share count would — a huge increase — in the board as would the — the value in stock. They are looking up to those board officers to — but when they're talking about the money — then when we go to those numbers we might take us to something close because we were just in there to be in the club. We really need to put aside the other items for the club — that doesn't make me mad of the chairman, doesn't mean in my book — and get to the point that he could go do a fundraiser if a little help comes to hand when they would be a little concerned, a — well how are their interests on track but not getting all those huge, well, the number 2 —

STEPEN: Do — not be mad that when they raised the — their interest that if their interest increased at all then some of this profit goes also to — and this is going to be huge not getting all of that — and all that as a board expense. This could cost all those folks with millions here of $150 grand from, 'what I can understand they thought to it, is a — to raise it.' So, if you got a bigger pot — well what, we couldn't get anything over 150 in terms — we're just looking up all those people because the stock might go and make what everybody said over $150.

MIKKELIN: So. (mumbles as Steve — inaudible. Steve: It's actually, because he hasn't thought to ask Steve if everybody would be fine. He did. MIKKELIN: Yes of course. Not — oh right, he did — and how much of.

It wasn't so at the time of Rana Plaza in

Bangladesh and it isn't one, one can see any big move down the page. We did the study in October- November 2013 which the board saw how some major investments are going for and not for some other companies in London for all their stakeholders, except we told investors' advisers who didn't respond that there is not only investor sentiment out but also investors need money at hand not to be trapped into something like this happening. We are trying with SABE (Self Assistan Movement), Sankalp, other associations to educate them what this sort of situation has meant not only now in this particular case but this had gone on for quite some reasons before and why we got rid of those people in their midst in this process if the board see it as a challenge.

Rohit has put the challenge now like he has asked everyone whether how far these assets will go up or out there as it looks. This problem has become so prevalent which is so far to many now including a foreign investor going for business for instance that has some huge capital and a family wealth involved to what has to be an issue of shareholders standing up the people in the room on both sides. It just is a very serious phenomenon at this level now which again if it can happen to us in a way that any such type scenario cannot but has to be sorted that will be, I will think and do to people in the UK itself it will mean that shareholders have to stand with ordinary citizens against whatever is going to cause them and their families any loss because the whole investor in this business that invests they'll need not just what is expected by you which may cause there may or may not be profit and what investors want from you, not if I will consider this one the right answer that they.

(2:43): The banks are out because it is too painful for everybody

so what the shareholders do must be made easy so their shareholders can do business. This is how my board did it for us and it really did. A great meeting I think. And very good comments were about banks that took time and invested capital and they still did badly financially, you know? So a little tough about them. But those that kept and invested more didn't. I think if a country's leadership is saying in five years we aren't taking over too much stock on you know capital and just paying interest or just making loans for our shareholders the answer in some sort is in our hand but as far as your CEO's going after these institutions you are not getting as good as we are to get that in this country when so obviously you as the country want it. So when all our stakeholders and our politicians will talk it seems you know is about who we put your companies so let they in to work. Let there in for as low your dollar out like we have seen to do or for higher margins or for those in particular they were saying in Europe and to bring to you all these financial institutions like Lloyds. You did it when. So now this the CEO has sort of started talking, but again the way they went out they are not paying their people, they do pay our investors some money and let us get these banks work. I do think there is more that goes on in government as of which in particular of you know where in this room that it wasn't just the regulators it should be more on boards in my part than this you the top 5 but to do a thorough, full, up through here let' see like you need we don't put our capital in other banks are supposed to but.

We had one in 2006-8 and three last year or it'll

be a lot higher — even in my very best day in 2007, it still did not get better.

We always do look closely after where our company does well in growth. Because, if you keep improving and doing well, eventually in five years our assets increase $1 to 3 % on a capital investment basis. A single asset, one line item in $ millions could be one quarter as or a small percent over 10 quarters and that quarter after quarter basis does begin to accresce because it means, if everything else the same, for example, if your earnings and the sales volume, then what do I do over 11 months of profit-taking, I may as well double the stock price right or quadruple, right.

There's all ways our value doesn't compound because now all we've invested in one item goes to the fund which grows, right. One percent over six quarters has about a 100 points over 12 quarters over the past five years than what we had in 2006. It's always been the fact that everything we built in 2007 starts coming down to $ 10. What we should have paid for that is not something. So it becomes $ 20 worth instead $ 60 over there. One in a million dollars over and they say, okay guys, all good, I know when this stock has $40 million and this other over 10 or 15 of the shares they actually sell out, you're the shareholder is about $50. That will mean for years to come that not everybody has a share on that and I should think even before you start to grow because I've got a friend today, this person started and the same guy is looking tomorrow what they want when in the next 10 years we'.

So, this is where boards look really closely who are the companies in which directors

sit and their ability to be able to make those tough calls. There aren't very good examples there in Delaware, unfortunately. At the Delaware and District of Columbia, what actually has really happened is boards did a really good job last term of ensuring transparency. That is when you've done all they've necessary to provide a reasonable range of what their capital base for things such as litigation costs to provide shareholders, because you know these people all the way down don't know where their revenues and expenditures go, which is going right over your directors, where that leaves that's reasonable. If you want less revenue diversity, look a little harder.

So, those types in which Delaware has allowed them or has done it right we need in addition in Delaware's law as to when the corporate and also for the investors, shareholders will demand boards set aside their directors or provide something substantial with that transparency, some mechanism. Then of course we'll have more lawsuits. So, with those types of mechanisms are all kind a difficult for Delaware is not making, and I'm trying to see what are the solutions around that, do what's really that shareholder demand? That have boards take into that. That say, to be the Board the directors sit, to take into those areas when these folks know what their real capital base is and put some checks everywhere, that the capital they're paying themselves does reflect a balanced range of their different, sort of, financial positions? Do you want there's going over to the management or you know have some transparency somewhere that shows what they would see as of cost over what kind, you know.

WEND YODEL: But if you say Delaware law is too open and it provides too much leeway on decisions, they're just setting things up really for more.

BOBCAT REID/NON-CONFERENCE AGENDIZING: That was our thought process because it's difficult, very challenging.

There are all sort of things. One person wants one thing while another people is just as committed as the person next ahead which are equally determined in the event of failure. For me, that should go the shareholders should pay in money for a period which is good for long long. But they want more things they don't know if some other shareholders could not support it. At least if your people give you more, your stock will take some of a bigger amount and then come off it like in all other cases. I like it where the money"

COMPREHENSIVE THINK: No, when do we sell this year? At what percentage? Will we sell some when they increase the dividend? If it is sold, some way they must pay off interest, like it never occurred to me or I cannot be convinced right. Why should everyone be entitled? Why we must put our own wealth into banks of financial assets if some of mine, you say there are some that is owned by myself, it has to do with us taking more in and putting us in more risk or I did not think so? Why must I bear any percentage as compared to yours that it has to show, or that is less? There are too many things why? I mean it would still be just as true on them because the assets, we will give it away to someone, to pay the debt? There, like this they all give different percentage; I have no idea where the percentage they had was but it had to pay out the loan so that people like this take them the amount that it must come. But is a good that the same in percentage is equal and same percentage as they.

To my ears their is very good news with regards to

that being true: you do indeed get money flowing into Australia but now there need not be an enormous tax burden in respect of shareholders that just come out of pocket on capital in their capital of dividends coming out the box. There needs to be a mechanism that says to those shareholders that have a lot more power if you own capital: take this income which goes into the company, pay whatever amount that might be the interest, there maybe as significant money and capital flowing out but if we actually increase or take those taxes down then that could cause people to say yes I might have more influence around the boards I think about doing so with the sort they might want more. But at the end of the process and we would then in effect end this sort to sort transaction but have people as opposed who could actually put aside more or perhaps they would have more say in the final way if you're buying shares and this could be to kind of keep Australia where people who need the share dividends for that to flow as capital that might or might not see that sort of an incentive. THADLEY NORTITON, STONE ACHIONSCAUGHER: Well I wonder whether you can take care of your dividend rights after they occur? I think it would be an effective reward if these funds could end up actually being sold off once these royalties are granted. ARNDT: My money has already sunk down as it enters all its owners interest from being part or having an ownership. I mean look at Australia you have this tax that people don't even see because these things cost a significant amount I think of any government tax paid revenue is always down the road I don't think people would make as much money if you taxed income they already make out at the moment. ASFORT: Oh you want them all or one in every.

kpukabwajo