Ann: Recapitalisation Agreement, page-193

Oh dear. This should actually read: The new lenders are now almost 100% shareholders.

Ok, now you are saying you think the current SGH could have a future equivalent value of $8 in 3-4 years? To say that they were "valued at $8 two years ago" is clearly not dealing with the actual facts - whoever gave an $8 valuation was dealing with a whole different set of numbers. The evidence is what has happened to the share price. Regardless, this is over 2.5x the $3 valuation that you have been trumpeting previously!

But you said that you considered a $3 valuation to be accurate - even given Steve's calculations and his comments that $800m revenue and 15% were high and without any real basis in evidence. Why have you changed? How can you possibly justify a $8 valuation given the fact that there are Warrants and Convertible Notes that make sure any cream from the top goes to the new owners?

You have quoted the $3 figure many times, including in this post HERE on 17 April. You also say that there are unkowns like NIHL, escrow and the WTG lawsuit. Well, the effect to current shareholders has been pretty much decided, so there is no upside here for you. You mention the shorters, of course, who should "get out now to avoid paying top dollar". Yes, they all got out for under 11c quite comfortably. So you were wrong there as well. Are you still averaging down or are you down over 60% on your investment?

If you consider a $3 valuation to be accurate (remember, this was based on a profit of $120m), then that is effectively equivalent to a share price today of 12c (4% of $3). I don't know how much clearer I can be.