rest in peace, page-7

re: atc looking good re announcement Lauura,

Read through ppetro's response. For once, someone has engaged in an intelligent debate on ATC and I applaud ppetro taking the time and effort to respond.

I have said many times before that if ATC achieves its' stated plans then well and good. From an investment perspective, that would mean that prospective investors like myself would have missed out on the bottom.

Conversely, I have correctly called ATC all the way down from its June heights (and its post 4 July heights).
So, let's just get our facts correct.

Ppetro and Yanlin at least engage the debate and are prepared to back up some of their propositions. Others, however, (not so certain about yourself) are clearly there to ramp the stock.

My point to all this is that many announcements have been made, and to date shareholders are still waiting.

The dual listing?

The suggestion that an Australian connection was not necessary (something, incidentally, which I argued to the contrary on)?

The 10x increase in November revenue due to the USD$0.20 interconnection fee into /out of China which ATC claimed in early November would increase its revenue many times over (ie: an ASX released impression of a multiple times increase in revenues, etc).

Claims regarding the rate of revenue growth, etc?

In the context of the most recent debate, I started arguing that ATC's contribution to any post FNT acquisition would be of the order of $30 -35m.

On current figures, that still seems to be about right.

But, on the basis of a $230m group revenue level for 2003 (ie: first full year of integrated operations), that suggests an FNT contribution of $190 -195m (just up on their FY02 apparent results of $175 -180m).

Far from being the growth machine that has been mooted to date, FNT continues to fulfill the potential role of a cashflow machine, feeding the growth appetite of ATC's Eurasian business strategy.

So, why the apparent premium, etc for FNT's business?

Also, I have previously argued at length about the prospect of further cashflow problems associated with a declining cash balance.

Clearly, out of ATC's announcement of 28/11, it is apparent that yet again they will have to go to the market to raise additional working capital. This is not what the Company argued mid-year, or even 1 -2 months ago.

Also, from an FNT closure perspective, just why is it that the shareholders are not being kept fully informed? By press release, yes. But not by detailed explanatory notes accomapnying any proposed GM.

Remember this, the FNT transaction was announced on 4/7 as a virtually complete deal, and yet we are now at 30/11 and no shareholders meeting has yet been held.

Yes, Lauura, maybe my posts are a bit long, but it is rampers like you that cause many investors to lose their hard-earned.

My experience is corporate and telecommunications, as I have long said. I have seen this type of situation before, and seemingly robust companies collapse. I have seen the dark side of management manipulation of the accounts, etc. I do not want ATC to go the same way, but the wisdom and approach of their management to date is, and remains, questionable. They would, therefore, be well advised to:
1)
properly close the FNT deal;
2)
properly assess and fund their business plan; and
3)
take a mature approach to keeping the market informed (again, EBITDA for a day is not the same thing as being EBITDA on a continuing concern basis - you, of all people should know that!!!).