AGMs

4 questions lodged at 2026 SRJ Technologies (SRJ)nk hybrid AGM


July 10, 2026

Below is the text of the 4 written questions submitted at the 17 minute SRJ Technologies (SRJ) 3pm Perth time virtual AGM via this Teams link. See notice of meeting. Market cap $18.7m on AGM day. The proxies were not disclosed early in these formal addresses. There were no protest votes. Sadly, was only shareholder asking questions.

Q1. When did we last tender the audit and when are we next going to tender the audit?

Answer: A good detailed answer explaining that Grant Thornton had been auditor since 2019 and they'd look at retendering some time in the next few years.

Q2. Why do we continue to signal a preference for raising capital through selective placements, rather than doing pro-rata raisings which treat all shareholders equally and don't require any specific shareholder approvals. Please focus on pro-rata raisings in future and don't ask for this extra 10% placement capacity at the next AGM. Have there been any material proxy protest votes on this resolution? And if you do a future placement, will retail shareholders be offered an SPP?

Answer: Did most of the questions orally via Teams but got the question wrangler to read this one out. Usual explanation provided. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q3. Why isn't this a hybrid meeting and will you publish a copy of the webcast?

Answer: The chair said a physical meeting wasn't possible because some directors were travelling and the meeting wasn't recorded so there's no record apart from my tweet above. Apologies I didn't record the oral exchanges.

Q4. I'm not a fan of paying brokers and investment bankers with equity because they are not generally long term holders and it gives then an incentive to talk up the stock to clients in order to facilitate a more profitable exit. What is our history with Peleton Capital and whose idea was it to partially pay them via this resolution. Will you commit to not do this again?

Answer:
The answer was the usual conserve cash spiel but got the point across quite strongly to not do this again.