re: Ann: Garner 1 well intersects significant... Kwaidan
I have no doubt that your knowledge of AMU is extensive
and no i have never worked for a broker.
Hartleys have supported AMU for some time now, since well before any capital raising was in the wind. In light of that i see no merit in your assertion that they are motivated by the prospect of fee generation.
The dilution is dissapointing and imo the company will need to start hitting some runs inorder to overcome the negativity that this has generated. I would like to see the company issue more info as to the rationale behind this move.
Why bring in a handful of insto's ?
As i have said, i dont believe that a placement to existing shareholders would have been widely supported and its my opinion that new investors are required to strengthen the register, preferably institutional investors.As i have said i myself probably wouldnt have participated, if i wanted to add to my position i would have done it at around 20c. I do however respect the other shareholders who may have wanted to participate and feel unhappy at being denied the opportunity.
I would strongly argue with your assertion that the Garner #1 announcement would have had a dramatic effect on the sp allowing them to raise at a higher price. A good announcement for sure but there have been bigger and better wells come in in the past and the impact has been fleeting at best. Why should this particular well have an impact of such magnitude ? Longville is a good example of this imo as is Wolf Cowling.
As for your last paragraph, it is purely assumption on your part and as such i cant see the point in dancing around that one with you
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?