agm

I find it hard to be as cynical as Budfox but I do understand the frame of mind. The agm left me completely flat I have to say. Not questioning my investment; just devoid of enthusiasm. I remember previous agm's and special general meetings in particular, and remember getting caught up in the Rah Rah of it all. And it didn't disappoint; a steady climb from 6 to 80 did seem to suggest that runs were soon to be scored. But that hasn't happened and we are where we are.

Some of the points made; there will be a definite focus on Asia, albeit the existing focus in Washington will continue. There is too much Gov't possibility there and there is good money to be made. But I understand staff there will be modest; I think 3 was mentioned.

There will be a little more focus on Subscribe as there is more interest. That is the original Mik tag that the Wool Board was using from memory. It has no tamper proof possibility.

The overall cost base has been reduced to what I think was described as a sustainable base.

Transit vault sounds like it is getting plenty of attention and is being trialed by a US Intelligency agency (if that makes sense). It is also being trialed in Canada and by the Oz Dept of Defence.

As Bud noted there was plenty of angst at the meeting. And some of this revolved around the issue of shares to Directors. For me that is an ongoing concern and it really pisses me off if the co is not ripping in money. Some of the shares issued in this case were in lieu of wages over 18 months or thereabouts. I have no problem with that. But the question arose that the Alpha Securities report which i posted gave a valuation of 19 cents a share. So why weren't the shares issued valued at that amount, and why wasn't the report published by the Co. The Co notes that they did not commision the report and so it was not published. Just like many Co's do not publish reports that are put out by a host of brokersor newsletter writers. Time will tell if this holds water.

There was lots of discussion on the $400,000 left in the till and the estimated $200,000 per month burn rate. Given the recent raisings I was somewhat surprised at what was left. It seems it has cost a lot to rid the Co of previous staff, and i don't know enough to comment on that.

However the reaction to the question, once the $400,000 was established, was interesting. Personally, once that figure was established, I felt a cold chill go through my body; two months of survival; a letter from the asx within weeks, etc etc. And yet there there was almost no reaction from the front bench; they admitted that they had engaged Hanuman Wealth to look at ways of raising extra money; but, the idea of MIK going under didn't seem to be a question. I was watching the face of Peter Tyree as he talked about this and I got the distinct impression that something close was at hand, and that was why no one was worried. Now, here this; that is just my impression and I have no basis of proof. The directors could all be shit scared. I queried this later, and the reason to have someone look at ways of raising money was just for insurance. One can't assume that deals will arrive on time.

The Co seems very pleased with the potential deal with Accenture and the US Gov't. It seems there were several Co's in line and Mik picked the most likely winner; approached the Co and told them how much our tecnology could put them ahead of there rivals. But the release goes into this.

Matt and Doug Halley were both there but split quickly and didn't get a chance to chat.

That's not all but my notes are sketchy. Bud may elaborate.

Overall, I have not lost my interest and not too disappointed about my recent buys at low prices. It seems it may not be that long before Veitnam and others are following suit. Cheers jwt