WEBINAR QUESTIONS, page-86

Hi @Holdtight, while I don'tunderstand your ability to willingness to defend what's gone before Iappreciate your POV. If I may respond

1. My error in the person’s name is duly, noted forsure but doesn't change the message. Is that market aware the Top 20 insistedhe be replaced in time?

2. You understand my point I’m sure – However"extremely experienced" finance people will cost even more than Iexpected.

3. I only asked whether the CEO accepts that he isnegligent in releasing incorrect and misleading information, and if there is adefendable reason that the CEO has not resigned. Subtle and intentionaldifference. Your point is noted though as it was leading I conceed.

4. I didn’t ask about future cap raises either butsomeone did and the response was unacceptable conduct of a CEO who knows he isaddressing livid shareholders. Westpac and CBA don’t raise capital to save fromgoing bust do they - and they still play dividends so that really is a long bowto draw.

5. The executive take performance shares (inexplicablyin this case) and shareholders can do scant about it – in six months when it’stime to put their snouts back in the trough it will be conveniently forgotten –besides its virtually immeasurable – hey guys we are only going to giveourselves 3 million performance shares this year – would’ve been 4 million butfor that unfortunate ‘roadblock’.

Are you suggesting as FACT that Dave paid for 135,851,820 directly held sharesand 22,166,667 Performance shares, which by definitionare not paid for?

Remember this scam – create a nonsense metric that nobody understood, soundedimpressive by the size of the umbers and served only to fill the coffers ofmanagement. Not to mention that the CEO holds enough shares that he is justabout the deciding vote.

6. You know my view onthis – step down – if DM has all the contacts etc fine but the company needs acompetent CEO not one who after five/six years remains on very wobbly trainingwheels