LUKA KOPER, d.d., Koper
Response to the Slovenian Sovereign Holding (SSH) and statements at the session of the National Assembly's Commission for Public Finance Control held on 17th June 2016
In the response of 17th June 2016 to Luka Koper d.d.'s announcement on the LJSE electronic information dissemination system the day before, the Slovenian Sovereign Holding's press release read that with regard to the information – in his view, a very large discrepancy between the dynamics of planned revenues and the dynamics of labour costs – problematised by the Management Board President of SSH Marko Jazbec, he "assumed the information was from the Strategic Business Plan of Luka Koper d.d. and Luka Koper Group 2016–2020".
The abovementioned statement is both odd and unacceptable for several reasons:
- On what basis would SSH "assume" that the NLB analyst who produced the document entitled "Analysis: A new investment cycle ahead Luka Koper d.d." had access to the Strategic Business Plan of Luka Koper d.d. and Luka Koper Group 2016–2020 given the fact that there is no such reference whatsoever in the document.
- The analyst projected the financial indicators by 2019 whereas the strategic business plan covers the 2016–2020 period which should have been additional signal to SSH that the analysis doesn't include the information from the company's strategic plan.
- It is also very unusual that SSH failed to identify the faults in the NLB analysis (for which the author took full responsibility http://seonet.ljse.si/?doc=LATEST_PUBLIC_ANNOUNCEMENTS&doc_id=60996), considering that SSH is supposed to monitor the company's operations and analyse the information publicly available in the Luka Koper Group's annual reports.
- In its statement, NLB in a fair manner indicates the purpose of its analyses: "The analyses of companies published by NLB serve exclusively to inform the clients who invest in the Slovenian securities and their better understanding of the financial instruments and the functioning of capital market. All views in the analysis serve exclusively said purpose. The analyses are not supposed to serve any other purposes."
It can be assumed that untrue information on Luka Koper d.d. operation was deliberately disseminated to the public which damages the reputation of the company and misleads the shareholders.
Further to this, we have the responsibility to protect the company's interests also in relation to the statements by the State Secretary Metod Dragonja summarised in the STA report from the session of the National Assembly's Commission for Public Finance Control held on 17th June 2016. Mr Dragonja said that the key issue was low return on equity although, as evident from Luka Koper d.d. and Luka Koper Group annual report for 2015, ROE stood at 10.5%. STA also published Mr. Dragonja's statement: "If we want to benefit from the State's stake in this company, we should consider whether Luka Koper is a happy family that from the perspective of economic proportions functions relatively comfortably or does it respect the role of owner."
Luka Koper d.d. is a public limited company with more than 30% private shareholders. Thus the company should not and cannot represent only the interests of one shareholder. In this context, Mr Dragonja's statement at the National Assembly's commission published by STA, that he finds it unacceptable for the company to assume the competence to set the objectives by itself, is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. Such a statement reflects complete misunderstanding of the corporate governance concept where the roles of the company bodies are clearly delineated.
Luka Koper, d.d.