free market? transparency? ha ha ha!!!, page-17

Hi Lovecce - Interesting research and post. I have a few questions.

Arkie says:

"And this is how Transerv was able to buy in 10%...now a very handy ASX listed vehicle for all stakeholders."?

This seems logical - do you agree with this comment?

I gather you say they suppress the price because they can and you have reached this conclusion because TSV should be a 10-bagger but it's not, yet.

By the way, I don't dispute your assertions, I'm mainly interested to see if I understand your point correctly -
suggestions of manipulations always seems terribly complex and nebulous to me.

I expect that may equally be because successful manipulation is conducted in a way that deliberately obscures that motive and provides some other credible explanation, or at least plausible deniability.

So, if we accept for argument's sake that manipulation is occurring, is the end-game bad for other holders, or is the effect just a delay in realising the value?

On the other hand, you talk of pushing out other investors. How is that done?

If the company were to say, vote to accept an offer that was not very good and that offer came from somehow associated parties this would be quite hard to do wouldn't it - given the facts you present are on the public record?

If, for example, if Latent offerred to buy it back for 4 cents wouldn't there be a need for an independent valuation to prevent blatant shenanigans?

If TSV is a 10-bagger, wouldn't they be hapy enough to take the 10-bagging of the significant investments already made, without any risk of nasty shenanigans blowback?

thanks