fas investor or miner, page-5

Rego, it might sound strange, but I DON"T HAVE A POINT OF VIEW.

What I have is an understanding of the market perception of FAS and its holding.

In the recent accounts as an example the GWR shareholding was noted as "GWR shares at cost" - 59 million!

Well the cost was 210,000 approximately FAS shares, which cost FAS the company nothing-

It might have COST FAS shareholders 59 million, but even that is a sandbag as many of those shareholders bought their shares at a different price.

I am astounded that the auditors can approve the purchase of GWR shares at "COST"

The reality is FAS the company robbed some GWR shareholders of fair value and the "COST" of the shares was (in real aussie dollars) nothing- it might be said that the "cost" of the shares was the cost of the failed GWR takeover but that was only 10 million or so

The accounts of FAS need some in depth analysis by shareholders before you commit more to this company- it is clear that the management are interested in bleeding, not adding value.

And finally even with this 59 million dollar windfall FAS can't engineer a business, that is what investors place their belief in - investors provide the capital, management increase the asset value relevant to the capital-
Investors get their return as a percentage of that- in a perfect world investors should get their return BEFORE management- not after and not instead
Show me any evidence of Intent of that philosophy