@goldbear a couple of points:
1. I have no intention of taking you on in a stock market knowledge war – we all know who will win that
2. You write:
BUD's used 3 different positionings for the cap raise requirement
- 'cap raise required only if monster deal' - pre raise teaser roadshow
- 'cap raise to meet monster deal cap requirements' - cap raise/cleansing period
- 'cap raise done after investors/brokers offered us money on premise we could grow faster' - latest
If I am reading you right, why do you see these as mutually exclusive or different?
Are they not simply an evolution of the same thing as deals developed?
To me the first one in the October Investor Preso “However... if a monster opportunity arises (ie: global sales & distribution deal), this would reflect a massive uplift needed in rollout scale.” Suggests, even if only in hindsight for some, that something was in the wind.
Indeed if I recall correctly this was the topic of much HC speculation/expectation at the time. So one could surely say that a cap raise was likely on the basis that a large, aka Monster, deal was expected. Do you agree?
My view is that the 3
rd one (Annual newsletter) was merely Dave, innocently, in his engaging style, clarifying the 2
nd one (‘matter of fact’, routine 30/10/17 ASX release statement) to help dummies like me better understand the way it worked.
I must disagree with you on the last point though – I believe the
questioner was implicitly questioning why BUD needs all that money when it was in the process of signing up a Monster Deal indicating that they had not read the very clear statement in the annual letter to shareholders answering that very question.
Maybe I am wrong .... but I doubt it .... and we will likely never know.
Interesting Trading Halt today.
