share issue, page-85

Agent13b,
I'm not ruthless but if I was trying to do a deal with someone and I knew that they 'may' be struggling for some cash, sure as eggs are eggs I'd be putting my foot on their throat trying to get the best deal for me as possible. It'd be like "you take my $xxx,xxx or leave it, the choice is yours" (knowing full well that for them to survive they have to take it)

But now WHN are saying (IMO) "Thanks, but, no thanks. But while we have you in the room, how about you pays us $yyy,yyy"

I'd be thinking 'Buggar, I want the chance of all those billion barrells of oil, so I now have to pay $yyy,yyy, cos they don't really need me.' and then the next thought will be "Who is that guy in a suit that is coming through the door with a transparent breifcase fulled with dollars"

Yip, it'd be nice if 'we' could have got more at 4.4 but for you and I to have been offered them, I'm sure that the time that it takes to do the documentation, print it, send it out in the post, give us punters time to read, digest and send back, cheques to be banked, shares to be allocated would be far greater than the 3 days of trading halt that we had to wait.

That in itself would give any one of the three multi-billion companies to well and truely have their foot on our throat.

Then there is the cost of doing a placement to us. So for me, I'm happy that for .9 cent a share cost (from its closing price) it eliminates all of that risk.

Just my Ponderings