This is what I actually said about the interview in direct Reply to Isildurrr who suggested I "listen to the interviews, it's all there". It's not why I was 'modded' ,so I'm sure I can repeat it in order to correct what you said. Why you said it, I don't know.
I wouldn't call these presentations 'interviews'. They are closer to an 'infomercial'. They are tightly scripted and I am fairly certain the 'slides' are produced in advance and both Interviewer and Interviewee know exactly what is to be discussed. It's not just two good old boys sitting down having a chat about LCK. I have to say they are both very good at it, very professional. I couldn't do it.
So the
interviewer is the one on the left. He appears to be sitting within the ground floor of the ASX building in Sydney, but it's just a still photo of it, onto a green screen background. His name is Sean Sandilands. Now Sandilands is an unusual but not unique name. For example there is Aaron Sandilands the 2.11m AFL footballer, retired, and Kyle Sandilands the Sydney radio shock jock who is said to be 'the most hated man in Australia'. I sure know how Kyle feels.
You didn't bother to do any research before spraying venom all over the place because if you had you would have seen on the latest list of Top 20 Options Holders that the Sandilands SMSF is number 7. It's possible that Aaron or Kyle or another Sandilands has a large amount of LCK Options in their SMSF but its a high probability the holder is Sean's SMSF. As I've already said, absolutely nothing improper about that.
When I talk about "directional bias" it has nothing to do with Directors, OK? What I am saying is that you are watching an interview conducted by a 'private wealth adviser' not a good journalist, which would go in a different direction. For example, if Leigh Sales from the ABC program 7:30 was doing the interview her research team would have bothered to look up the 2021 Annual Report and would already know the numbers of Shares and Options listed there for Directors, their Companies and in DJ Peter's case, the holdings of his close family. She might also have a few curly questions lined up. Such as "Mr Peters, you and the LCK Board have recently 'flipped the bird' to the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment. What do you think AWE's next move might be?
Mr Sandilands' ultimate aim is to secure more commissions for share sales during future Cap Raisings. Mr Peters is promoting his company. Perfectly reasonable and lawful aims. Just know what you are watching.
The long argument you then presented re directors' shareholdings is also faulty. You are expecting us to believe that Directors, with all the knowledge of their own Company that they have, and all the experience they have as Directors, have managed to hit the exact market peaks time and again while buying, and being allocated, 'close to $25 million in the last five years'. And now their holding is worth less than $11.4 Million, right?. Pretty poor investing skills if that is what you are saying.
(20min delay)