director buying, page-10

Flemster,

I am happy to have a go at it. I know what happened but as to whether I can explain it well enough, let's see. In 2009 the shares had a NTA of only 15c but they had a 1:10 consolidation. If they had only done that and nothing else then the shares would have had an NTA of $1.50 because you only have one share for every ten you had previously. But they combined that consolidation with a massive capital raising. Much of it was debt converted to equity but the rest was placements and rights issues at 25c a share (at the time it was 2.5c a share but you need to adjust for the 1:10 consolidation). So original shareholders saw their NTA watered down from $1.50 to the current 39c as a result of all of this. The maths works too. If you issue 9 shares for 25c each and have one existing share with an NTA of $1.50 then you end up with 10 shares having assets of $3.75 (9x0.25 + $1.50 = 3.75) and this equates to an NTA of 37.5c which is close to what we have now.

At the time I thought they were giving the company away to "sophisticated investors" but even those late comers are now getting a hiding as they paid 25c a share for their shares.

When you take all of this into account the original shareholders have been decimated. Back in 2005 I paid $1.64 for my first Capral. Those shares have been consolidated 1:10 so I paid the equivalent of $16.40 for them and they are now 13c.

And I keep buying them :) Some people never learn.

GPASAS