Ann: Strategic Placement to Raise $3.5 million, page-90

Not quite sure what "coy" is short for, but it should be pretty clear I was speaking about the strategic placement value to existing share holders being undeniably weak (certainly not the company being a pig in lipstick) and clearly an on-market buy having far greater benefits for existing shareholders (we were afterall told at the AGM in formal speech and in subsequent comments that "on-market" instituional buying was emerging and would be encouraged). I can't make the evidence clearer on the relative benefits of the two than setting the size against the on-market volumes traded - they are hugely differnet in terms of share price implications.

Sorry Kain, but I am afraid I disagree with you on the only way management attracting buyers, being with a discount offer. If they spent $3.5 million on an off-market buy-back at $0.37, then they were clearly won over on the business merits to invest that sort of capital in the company - as we are all in agreement on here is under-valued. If I am one of those professional/wealthy investors willing to invest say $1 million at $0.37, knowing the merits of the investment/company, and denied a discounted buy-in, I am still buying maybe $0.5 milion on market in leiu of that up to say $0.45 - just as you and I and all share holders, bar insiders, have to do to build larger positions.

I'd rather have Mssrs Ellison, Jones, Malone, McCusker Family and the Merchant Biotech Fund perhsp only getting only half filled on their 9.5 million share and the share price trading likely $0.50+, than the company $3.5 million richer and shareholders stuck at the same old $0.40 share price and diluted 5%.