Wayne promised no CR, page-152

Well CR persay shouldn't exclude foreign investors, so that is a very good point you make. Why are they excluded? Yet another reason how 7.1 and 708 is distorting the flow of capital and favouring one set of shareholders over another. Yet another reason for radical reform on 7.1 and 708, but are we ever going to see this while a certain sector of the financial services industry lives and breathes and benefits off it's very inequities? And while the managing authority (the ASX) - a privately run company with almost total and absolute market domination, sets the rules?

Are you suggesting that is the reason for not doing this raising fairly in this particular case?

If foreign investment limits were the issue in the prohibition of that group of shareholders in partaking in a CR, I don't see why this couldn't be factored into any efficient and equitable RR issue. The maths would be simple. Set the limits at the outset when the company initially floats and keep it that way.

As for the argument "given the SP has fallen to below the CR price"..what does that have to do with a discussion of how the issue is structured? That is a problem with the price set by the company for the issue. Not whether or not it is a rights issue.

As for the argument "don't forget 12% are being purchased by staff/board members- some of who are existing shareholders therefore not zero risk profile" you are mixing the "risk". That risk needs to be separated. The risk of them losing their jobs is a totally different risk to them holding shares in the company. Why are these risks grouped together? Each share is the same. Staff members and board members don't hold different groups of shares. Like a separate sort of preference share for staff and board members or something. Are you suggesting boards would or should be thinking they should somehow be treated differently when making these CR decisions?