Questions in italics...
I would also like to know why no director took up any of the rights issue? They were 'selling' it as a good deal, yet their actions clearly demonstrated they didn't think it was a good deal.
Leaders lead from the front, so not taking up any of their own rights, to invest more into the company sent a very large negative message to the market. If the directors, including Scott, didn't think the rights issue was a good deal, then why didn't they pull the right's issue altogether?
Right now it looks like the directors will only take up the rights if 'others' take up the rest of the issue, so they don't have the same level of risk as general shareholders that did take up the rights issue earlier. Scott, can't you see how this is a very bad look for the leaders of the company??
If directors are going to take up any of the rights issue then why are they not doing so now??
It is an inside benefit, not available to other shareholders in waiting to see if the company can get the rest of the funding from others, first.
This is how it appears to the market that isn't informed of everything else going on. How do you and other directors think this is equitable?
If the company does get other investors to take up the rest of the rights issue, then directors should be stripped of the ability to take up their rights, or make up the last bit. This is a game of risk/reward, by waiting to take up your rights, you are limiting your risk and maximising your potential reward, something not available to other shareholders. It all adds to the perception of integrity, or lack there of.
I believe you and the directors of this company have integrity and want the project to be a success, so why are you NOT investing in the rights issue now, to show potential investors how much you believe in the project?? Why can't you and other directors lead from the front??
Expand
