Ann: Capital Raising Presentation, page-215

Just ask yourself how low it would go if the board decides to do another cash raising this year - not next year - but this year - from here with a share price around where it is (14.5 cents) - not where it was (26.5cents).

Because that is exactly what is contemplated when the board puts this into the Explanatory Memoranda -

"The Company wishes to retain as much flexibility as possible to issue additional equity securities in the future without having to obtain Shareholder approval for such issues under Listing Rule 7.1 and Listing Rule 7.1A. To this end, (Resolution 1) seeks Shareholder approval of the issue of Shares under the Unconditional Placement under and for the purposes of Listing Rile 7.4"

(announcement of 24 april 2023 - numbered page 11 - is actually 14 of 27)

They want approval at the EGM because they don't want to have to ask for your approval later this year because how embarasing would that be?)

They wouldn't need that if they were confident they wouldn't need to raise again soon. Like this year sort of soon. By next year they'd get a whole new chance at a whole new 7.1. But that's too far away it seems.

How low can this go? Really, really poor management can run a company down to zero. Zero is the lowest. They just commit all the cash to something that isn't worth what they contractually commit to paying for it.

Say for instance CYP is part way through a GvHD phase 2 trial commitment - can't take back what it has spent - its spent - and hasn't got results yet - so it has to spend more.

How quickly can you turn money into nothing if you go out and buy stuff with no care as to whether you are paying more than its worth when you commit to buying it?

For instance when you put you money in the hands of a board with absolutely no hard commitments from them that they will do anything except make best endeavors as they see those at something - aren't you writing effectively a blank checque? Isn't it your fault that they didn't have to make any hard commitments to you as a shareholder to achieve anything - isn't it your fault you didn't insist on some KPIs?

Wasa you ticked Truss20's post that contained zero content and was pure ad hominem. That disappointed me. I've stood up for you against bullies.

You have been imprinting on whoever moves into your field of vision that doesn't abuse you much like a baby duck without an obvious mother will imprint even on a block of wood tied to a string and that is dragged in front of it - in the absence of a better mother possibility.

You want Carlton123's advice now. He's just discovered the bottom that isn't.