DoC’s Billion Rand cash cow

[Gatecrasher]

Register of Members != Register of Shareholders

I've been in the financial markets for many yeras and even did my stint in a stockbroker's office. Unless the world has changed radically without my knowledge, every shareholder is a member, and every member is a shareholder, ergo

Register of Members = Register of Shareholders

This was sent out on the JSE''s SENS in respect of the register of members.

Telkom SA Limited
(Registration Number 1991/005476/06)
ISIN ZAE000044897
JSE and NYSE Share Code TKG
("Telkom")
Response to allegations in respect of Telkom's shareholders register - recent business day reports
Subsequent to the recent reports in the Business Day of 21 and 22 November 2005 about the alleged non-existence of the Telkom register of members, Telkom response to these allegations is as follows:

The Companies Act, 61 of 1973 prescribes that a register of members be kept but it is not peremptory that the register be kept in hard copy or bound book form. Provision is made for sub-registers to be kept . This provision has clearly been inserted to meet the demands of a listed company.

From the above it follows that a company, such as Telkom, may:

Have more than one document constituting in the aggregate the register;
Maintain a register consisting of more than one form (i.e. a hard copy and / or the other means provided for)
In practice, Telkom has adopted the following procedure:

Computershare, who acts as the transfer secretary on behalf of Telkom, maintains a register on behalf of Telkom, in electronic format, reflecting the particulars of the Class A and Class B shareholders, certificated and beneficial holders held in Computershare's CSDP as well as Telkom's shares dematerialised through STRATE and held in other CSDP's. This register is available for inspection.
The dematerialised shares are administered by STRATE.
Once a month Telkom receives an electronic report from STRATE and from Computershare, which maintains the register of members. This information is also available to Telkom on CD format.
The Register of Members (electronic format) is open for inspection free of charge for any member or his duly authorised agent, and upon payment of R10.00 for any other person.

Johannesburg
23 November 2005

The difference in definition that you cling to, after STRATE, is no longer tangible. What Telkom does, whether it be 100% to the letter of an outmoded law or not, is standard market practice.

The fatal flaw in your argument, is that you are assuming that guavamentals obey and respect the letter of the law, corruption is endemic in guavamental circles based on a spate of incidents of corruption, so the law is not obeyed and respected within guavamental circles, sure there are statistically likely to be some guavamentals that are not corrupt - perhaps even bcos they are not in a strategic position to commit fraud etc when their superiors are.

We know that there have been many incidents of curruption. We know this directly because of the stringent controls that are in place to root it out. There was very little corruption in the Apartheid Era, not because there was very little corruption, but because there were very few controls and the perpetrators more easily got away with it.

Ignoring the possibility that corruption is a major factor, is a really bad idea, and a lack of concrete evidence that there is no corruption, does not prove that there is no corruption, however there is strong circumstantial evidence in the lack of a Register of Members, that on its own suggests that corruption is a major factor.

Nowhere do I ignore the possibility of corruption. But to assume that there is corruption in the absense of any evidence and then use it as the basis of an argument to dismiss everything said by the minister or the DoC is an equally bad idea.

 

[TelkomUseless]

maybe not corruption per se, but what stop goverment from saying to Ivy, ICASA etc.. to "slow" the proccess ... and they will receive a good "bonus".

 

[ic]

@GC, there are quite a few legal minds that have been to Telkodemonopolies HQ, requesting access to the fabled Register of Members, and they have been forcibly escorted out of the building by security guards, affidavits from these legal minds exist.

I don't have the concrete evidence you require to prove anything beyond your level of doubt, so believe whatever you want to believe.

PS: The Companies Act [as amended] requires that a company's Register of Members be kept at the registered offices of that company, in Telkodemonopolies' case that is its HQ, and so far there is no evidence that Compushare has or maintains listings of A&B share certificate holders.

 

[Charlie.]

Hypothetically speaking, let's imagine what would happen if the teleco market was not controlled by legislation...

Either Telkom's pricing structure and service levels would be entirely redefined instantaneously...

... or, next business day, a half-dozen entrepreneurs and foreign investors would register teleco companies and prepare to start offering better services on all levels, from new international lines to the last-mile itself.

Why is Telkom's monopoly enshrined by legislation? Could it be the dividends payed off by the 38% stake that government holds in Telkom and, thus, the whole industry? Could it be the private shares owned by members of parliament? Could it be under the counter kickbacks that haven't been uncovered yet?

It is one symptom of this governments refusal to remain neutral in capitalist, competition-driven markets!

 

[antowan]

I just don't think it is useful to boil every news item down to corruption. It's a cop out. It gets more and more boring and less and less credible by the day. Threads are not debates any more, they have become competitions to find the most amusing and degrading insults to sling at the minister.

There are alternative views of government's actions out there. Few of which ever appear on this website. I'll leave you with one:

Lets not be narrowminded about broadband

You can only hold your breath for so long Gatecrasher. You can only listen to all the good advice being given to government, see them toss it out the window, maybe now and then saying the right things and even start rolling a ball or two in the right direction and then later stand agasp when she (Ivy) backtracks.

How long does it take for government to start showing genuine movement in the competition and cheaper telephony sphere? How long?

I am at this crossroads after close to 13 years after I had my first fight with a government official (my father!) about the redicilous state of telecoms in this country. 13 years later and my dad is sharing my view that things are not going slow, they are going deliberately slow.

But share with me your view Gatecrasher. When in your view can we stand next to eachother, look at the telecoms landscape and check if it has changed for enough not to equal corruption. You say the more folks hammer on the corruption drum, the more watered down and stale the theory becomes. I differ from you on this point. I say, the longer things are stagnant (pricing and service levels being my guide on this) or even deteriorating the more valid our complaints about corruption get. How long will it take for you to share this view or will you forever blame beaurocracy and the "nature" of government for this? 5 years? 10 Years?

When GC? When?

 

[Sneeky]

It is not in the governments interest (or their pals) to let market forces decide the fate of TELKOM through competition.
That I believe is the absolute truth.
TELKOM's value would certainly be severely compromised should reforms move at anything faster than the blistering snails pace we currently are forced to endure.
Elephant, the PIC, BEE, they all stand to lose to much.

The PIC 'used to' administer the State Pension fund (7th largest fund in the world according to the press)
This changed recently and the PIC are heavily invested in TELKOM. (15% +-)
Seems the fund wants to take back control and change the way it does things a bit.
How significant a move this is or isn't is debateable but maybe a sign of some changes in their risk profile?
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A578848