So, yeah, MinRes (MIN) held their AGM today - check out their Chairman's and Directors' addresses (Annual-General-Meeting---Chair-and-Director-Addresses.PDF) - CE gave a short address himself - trying to strike a balance between contrition and "Remember what I've done for you ungrateful bastards!"  

It seems the short MD statement was book-ended by boasting of his achievements, with some mumbling in the middle about "sure, I've cut some corners along the way. Sorry about that..."

Anyway, I won't be buying back into MinRes based on the fact that the basis for the majority of the AFR's revelations and allegations concerning CE & MinRes stem from a whistleblower complaint to the MinRes Board two years ago that has now been leaked to the AFR. The MinRes Board admit they've been "investigating" these allegations and others, or most of them, for the past two years, despite not releasing any details of the allegations or the investigation at any time prior to the past few weeks and only then because the stuff was firmly moved into the public domain by the AFR and forced the hand of the MinRes Board. 

During that 2 years a number of further incidences have occurred including some that were addressed in the Chair's statement today. There was clearly NO attempt to strengthen corporate governance at any time in the two years of that investigation UNTIL the allegations - most of which have been admitted to by the MinRes Board now - were made public by the AFR and resulted in at least 3 "please explain" letters in two weeks from the ASX and a recently commenced investigation by ASIC in conjunction with the ATO into Chris' offshore tax avoidance scheme that resulted in MinRes overpaying for equipment and then claiming excess depreciation expenses on that equipment as a result of those overpayments.

Therefore - the MinRes Board were putting corporate profits and their own jobs and interests ahead of corporate governance (i.e. their job) on the basis that any move against Chris would be detrimental to MinRes, its share price, its Board, and its future as an attractive investment proposition to a significant number of insto's, funds and retail investors. And there was the small fact that Chris remained the largest MIN shareholder and had the support of a number of fundies who were invested in MinRes also. That alone would have meant that any move to reign in Chris Ellison's excessive greed and personal enrichment at the expensive of MinRes would likely have involved a level of bravery the MinRes Board did not possess.  

Have a look at their reporting structure (below) - everybody reports directly to Chris. Sure it's streamlined, but it also means there is nobody to second guess or even question Chris' decisions except the Board, who are supposed to oversee management (i.e. Chris), but Chris is also on the Board as the Managing Director, and is also their largest shareholder as well as the company's founder, and the Board didn't lift a finger to slow him down, UNTIL their hand was forced in recent weeks.

I think the MIN share price could fall lower, but will ultimately likely return to somewhere between $50 and $60/share within the next year or two based on the strength of their mining services (CSI) business and the value of their other assets (various mines, equipment, infrastructure and shares in other companies). 

I won't be a part of that recovery because I want to invest in companies where I have faith and trust in management, and this has blown up any trust I had in Chris Ellison and the MinRes Board.

However from a value perspective, leaving aside the "G" of ESG concerns, they are oversold now, because they are unlikely to go broke, despite their high debt, because their repayments don't start for another 2 years, and even if iron ore and lithium are still trading at these depressed levels their assets still have value. 

If iron ore falls further however, that could be bad for MinRes because it could put the profitability of Onslow and their other I/O operations at risk in addition to all of their lithium operations being unprofitable at current prices. They recently announced the mothballing of Bald Hill, despite it having lower costs than some of their other lithium mines which will continue to produce - for now, but the difference is that Bald Hill is 100% owned and operated by MinRes, and both Wodgina and Mt Marion have JV partners who currently want those operations to keep producing despite the low spod prices because they have offtake agreements and rely on spod from those operations for their other operations elsewhere.

Plenty of things could drive the MinRes share price lower, and it wouldn't take much to see the share price rebound +$20/share either, so expect volatility with MIN I reckon.

However, if anything, this AGM today just reaffirmed my decision and strengthened my resolve to keep MIN on my "Avoid" list.

I'm still having MIN on my watchlist

Watched the Business just now and while there was one shareholder who wanted to land a punch on management. But another lady was more optimistic (or maybe philosophical) and preferring to look at the long term outlook and hoping the business can look towards growth again.

By the way, seems that dog stock and Onslow Royalty holder Red Hill Minerals is holding up against all this MinRes turmoil. I'm still holding RHI by the way but not in Strawman as I don't have much conviction in it and will sell once I've broken even after dividends are paid. Plus I can't make sense of their exploration project earn in with Peel

Hang on I think I have broken even after receiving 3 dividend payments (0.10, 1.50 and now 0.3) - better than Minres with no dividend.

Very much agree with your thinking @Bear77

MoM podcast coverage of Thursday's MinRes AGM: 21-Nov-2024: Ellison Speaks. What Really Matters for MinRes Now?

The lads had some divergent views. Matty is on Team Chris. Trav is more critical, and stresses that the real story is the true economics of Onslow, which he believes MinRes is not being entirely open and honest about, as demonstrated by some digging he's done which has unearthed various discrepancies, i.e. the true costs are likely higher than what the market has been led to believe. Trav also believes there is more to come out, and he was right, judging by the revelations in the AFR today about cruel bullying and harassment by CE of female executives at MinRes: https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/inside-chris-ellison-s-brutal-executive-meetings-20241122-p5ksso

It's probably worth noting that the toxic culture at MinRes HQ where Chris was able to do and say whatever he wanted without any consequences because of the immense power he wielded within the company as the MD, the founder, and the largest shareholder, has resulted in a situation where people within MinRes, and people who have left as a result of the culture and Chris' behaviour, are now more than happy to provide details to the AFR of these matters. My point is that now that there is somebody who will not only listen but bring these matters into the public domain, there is no shortage of sources who are happy to share their own experiences and observations. Particularly as the likelihood of severe retribution from Chris towards these sources has now greatly diminished. So while people are talking about a media "pile-on" that is kicking Chris Ellison (the poor old "tall poppy") while he's down, the truth is that the real victims are often the people who are providing these details to the media. The more allegations come to light, the more new allegations are likely to emerge as more people are emboldened to speak out. This is what fuels these so-called "pile-ons". If the culture wasn't so toxic, and if the bad behaviour didn't go back for so long, there wouldn't be so many allegations to be made.

Chris Ellison has nobody to blame for this slow motion train wreck but himself.

JD was keeping his cards close to his chest and trying to stay impartial as always. They did highlight the significant support for Chris that could well mean that he stays on beyond this 18 month timeframe given by the Board for Chris' departure. After all, in 12 to 18 months time, will this have largely blown over, or are we still going to be talking about it on a regular basis? It's possible that the long timeframe has been chosen with the intent of changing their minds at some point to allow Chris to stay on in the MD role, something that a number of retail investors and fundies would welcome if it happened.

Nothing in this changes my view. MIN remains on my "Avoid" list. However it is interesting that Travis' view is that people are losing sight of what really matters, which is the real value of the Onslow iron ore project to MinRes, including the real costs, and what that means to MinRes' intrinsic value and future. To be clear, Trav believes that the true costs, including all of the royalties payable and various discounts that the end-product buyers are entitled to, are not well understood by the market and are higher than the market assumes, which reduces the profitability of the project. Trav also points out that some of the assumptions that MinRes have made in their presentations on Onslow could prove to be NQR (not quite right) including the ore moisture content, the shipping costs over the life of the project, the iron ore price over the life of the project, and the aluminium content in the ore not being a problem.

I feel that they are giving Chris the benefit of any doubt a lot more than many other commentators might, and that is probably to be expected as their core demographic is mining investors and people who work in the sector, so they are understandably supportive of the industry and MinRes as a major employer in the industry, but Trav and JD aren't drinking the Kool-Aid to the extent that Matty Michaels is, and Trav in particular is keen to point out the dangers of both the failures of governance and the failures of the market to fully comprehend the real costs and risks around Onslow and how much the real economics of Onslow impact MinRes as a company and an investment proposition.

I think this episode is one where they go beyond just restating known and commonly accepted facts, and delve deeper at times into a few things that might have been missed by many market participants and prospective (and current) MinRes investors.