Ann: Capital Raising Presentation, page-160

Net asset values in companies like Cynata consist mainly of the cash they hold.

But if cash held is actually contractually committed - like for instance to doing a GVHD trial its not cash that is available to doing other potentially better (in terms of return on investment) things.

Management matters. Management makes commitments to other parties about things like how much they are willing to pay in return for what quality or quantity of goods or services. If management can't make good deals (and its perfectly possibly to make a contract that is binding and yet is a very bad deal) then net assets calculations alone don't show that loss of intrinsic value.

Your chosen focal point for value accretion in the near term is DFU. DFU could have been progressed with the 16 million odd they already had and Sculptor could have progressed - and gvhd - so far as shareholders have been informed (is not obligated to go ahead right now - perhaps it is - perhaps WARF is demanding progress - but if so we should be told that).

DFU is a phase 1 ---- 30 patient only trial. Data for six patients came out only. And that data - which going by the way Ross describes it, is in his opinion anyway positive. Yet it wasn't put into the public domain separately and ahead of the capital raising. It was included with a presentation put together for briefing so called sophisticated investors - who got to find out about it at the same time as they were getting offered around a 19% discount to the share price when the market was trading. In my opinion that is unfair to existing holders whose existing share capital had funded the trial results. We paid and we didn't get to see before Ross was offering the results of what we paid for to others at a discount -their options are guaranteed - ours as existing shareholders are conditional and also subject to scale-back at management discretion. So that would be at the discretion of the same board that thought it okay in the first place. Morally I hate that favoring of new capital and new holders over existing capital that paid for the results to be produced. Legally I think its probably on the wrong side of a line as well - but in practice that sort of shannigans seem to have become a part of standard, in my opinion, shoddy Australian legal and commercial practice, so I think it would be difficult, certainly time consuming, to make a legal case about it. I'm tired of dying on hills for a country and for countrymen that don't give a damn about fairness and decency. To favor sophs - whose only qualification is income and net assets is like favoring the old (with income and assets - perhaps inherited not earned on merit) over the young - the already haves over the trying to get a fair gos.

If any of this, which is my opinion is wrong, then it can be rebutted as wrong.