WA8 - General Discussion, page-285

Thanks Bullelk, but I think you may have missed my point re the disclosure rules. I think those rules are strict but at the same time, as you rightly point out, they are very easily flouted and indeed, most companies IMO regularly flout them. But I dont make this distinction simply for "academic" interest. There is a very real practical point to it. These rules have been developed for almost a century now to protect us, the shareholders, and we only shoot ourselves in the foot if we accept the reasoning that, because public companies regularly flout the rules, it's OK for them to do so. It's NOT. That will only lead to the rules being flouted more often and in circumstances that are increasingly more dubious. On the other hand, insisting that the standards must be maintained has the opposite effect; that is, the rules will be flouted less often (look at it like self-regulation - "I probably won't get caught cheating, but then again I could"). Heaven knows retail traders have enough disadvantages in the marketplace without us accepting a watering down of the minimal protections the powers that be have so begrudgingly afforded us. Oh and I should reiterate (I did make this point in my earlier post) that it's somewhat deflective to say that the company can't release the assays until they have finished their analysis. Of course, they can't and shouldn't. Most would agree that until that analysis is done the reporting obligation doesn't arise (though there does come a point where the analysis could take so long that the company does need to request a trading halt).