YES, a BIG difference between a Placement and Entitlement Offer....

YES, a BIG difference between a Placement and Entitlement Offer. One is fair, the other is not.

And once again, some free riding institutions get their greedy hands on shares that rightfully should be offered to retail investors. The structure of this offer is grossly inadequate from an existing holder's perspective.

I'll be contacting management for an explanation as to why over 10m shares were offered to non-shareholders in the Placement. Only 6.4m of the 16.5m new shares are being offered to current shareholders (being retail and institutions) ie. 1 for 13.65 with current shares on issue of about 87m.

Those shareholders who have put their treasured savings into IPG and put their faith in management (possibly since IPO) should be rightfully offered about 1 new share for every 5 shares owned (or 4 for 21 to be more exact). ie. We shareholders should be offered about 190 new shares for every 1,000 owned. But alas, we will be offered only 74 new shares for 1,000 owned and be shortchanged 116 new shares per 1,000 owned. In summary we're being diluted by brand new shareholders!

What the company should have done to be fair and equitable was make a fully renounceable 4 for 21 offer to all existing shareholders and conduct no Placement. That way if you don't have the funds to take up your entitlement, you can sell them on-market to compensate for being diluted.

I understand that the Placement is quick and easy. But let's remember the CMI deal needs Excelsior shareholder approval so an equitable renounceable entitlement offer to existing shareholders is not an unreasonable expectation in my opinion.