Thanks for your insights buddy, this stock really is a fascinating case study of the emotional versus rational side of investing.
It was disappointing that when the CPSA stuff came
through on Friday they didn’t take the opportunity to clarify some of the questions around conflicts I have posed them (yes I am/was getting their communications but doesn’t mean I just believe everything they say). I suspect they are working so hard not just to ensure the scheme doesn’t get up but also to change the BOD so they can get back on the retainer bandwagon. If this is not the case why don’t they just respond to the queries asking them if there are any potential conflicts? All they are pains to do is stress that it is “not financial advice”. I don’t know how many shares Judd/William Buck own but they were’t in the top 20 so you would say not very many. For the sake of a hypothetical lets say they bought more to influence the result and have 2million... if they bought those at 20c and will get net retainers for running the CPSA of $10k a month they will likely cover their losses and have an ongoing revenue stream of greater than $100k for the foreseeable future, alternatively the scheme gets through and they get their 20c back! No brainer! If following the ceasing of the retainer with the current CTP BOD, why don’t they just state they won’t reintrduce the retainer with a new BOD as I have asked them several times? The reality is without this clarity the potential for conflict between William Buck/Judd and ordinary shareholders is real and significant!
The amount of dilution the company has suffered over the years it basically means it is take over proof, because no one is ever going to pay the price shareholders here seem to want, except maybe if there is a massive discovery, but there is no drilling planned that could result in a big discovery for several years, and according to the latest expert reports is very unlikely to be successful!
Buddy, you seem not to be following the sequence of events around the substantial shareholder notice and the 249d. The optionco proposal and 249d initially came out before the substantial shareholder notice. So based on the evidence you would say optionco, deliberately or otherwise, acted in contravention of the corporations act. Not a good move for a new board of directors with no other discoverable track record who are seeking to run the company (put Stuart Howes into google and see what you find). Trident capital is not affiliated with a law firm so we have at least one advisor who specialises in dilutive equity raisings connected to optionco, its going to be ugly if they do any raisings like they have done for other ASX oil and gas companies.
I'm out as of last week and won’t re-enter until there is more clarity from optionco around the individuals, their intentions and any conflicts with WilliamBuck. To avoid the wasting of more human effort in guessing at my motive, I confess I am only in/out of this to maximise my wealth!
