punters getting 'reamed', page-20

re: dropping like a stone now Hi Hilldweller,

Not so. I needed to be careful in responding to Blackoil's question, as it would have been inappropriate for me (or anyone else for that matter) to suggest whether (or not) MUL should be fined (etc).

What I was trying to state was the following:
1)
there is increased surveillance being carried out by the ASX;
2)
this has already resulted in a number of companies being queried regarding their compliance /disclosure practises;
3)
MUL was queried earlier this week over its share price movements;
4)
something happened last year when the 25x change in disclosure interest notices were issued by the Company;
5)
the preference is always for disclosure and compliance, with fines and prosecution as a last resort (as it should be in any system of regulation);
6)
whether MUL has breached any particular Listing Rules (etc) is for the ASX to determine (and not for us to speculate upon);
7)
what is clear for me, at least, is that the ASX is now taken a much keener interest in a number of companies (MUL being one of them); and
8)
if you read the language of the ASX statement and then interprete it, you may well arrive at the conclusion that a veiled compliance warning (vis-a-vis consequences) has been issued.

Directors of any company cannot, in my view, get away with basically anything. The warnings have been well and truly issued to all concerned and final messages of compliance (ie: yield) or face the consequences will be the mantra of the ASX in 2004. Expect, in my view, increased compliance, regulatory intervention, and enforcement practices involving an increasing number of ASX listed companies this year.

Trust that this clarifies your concerns. Thank you for raising them.