I am pro buy back. Clearly it is wiser to raise $US125M via CRML post IPO, than retain $AU10M for 100M EUR shares, for EUR shareholders.
Although I don't completely disagree with the view of "try to push up the share price" (let's assume there's truth to it) it's futile to argue as 100M shares is very clearly not enough to "push" a stock's share price from 6c to 16c based on 1.4B issued shares. The buy back stopped at 10c. Performance shares gone with the wind. It is more plausible that the reason was indeed to add value to shareholders (Directors included) knowingly the company is hard done by the market and heavily undervalued.
All for-profit company Directors are driven by greed, and all try to benefit themselves first whether financially or ego before shareholders. In fact, the only reason any person have other shareholders of their companies is not by choice but by need to raise capital. It does not make them "corrupt". So if you meet a Director who is not greedy, then that person is a lot more dubious than any other. Their agenda for running a for-profit company is immediately compromised and I would question why they lead the company to begin with.
I'm replying simply because I'm intrigued why you seem hard done by the buy back. It makes no sense to me. Other than, perhaps, a day trader who bought at 10.5c and forced to sell at 9c (or there about) now venting. Correct me if I'm wrong.
