Thanks for your post CMWILSON. I don't claim to be an expert and...

Thanks for your post CMWILSON.

I don't claim to be an expert and therefore am happy to cop my fair whack when I get it wrong.

I will however make the following comments in relation to your response:

Firstly, I have already acknowledged in my original post that the listing price will "invariably fall upon listing". I think we are in agreement on this one. I just foresee a much more stable "investment grade" company, with hopefully a share price that reflects this going forward.

Secondly, the class action issue is ultimatley a CER problem now (CNP is dead, buried and forgotten). Whether we take our class action hit (dilutioon) as independant CER shareholders or as aggregate CRA shareholders makes absolutely no difference. The class action lawyers are coming after us regardless of which corporate rock we hide under...

CATS is therefore an inevitable reality for CER shareholders and we can't expect the other two funds amalgamating with us to want to be part of this. CATS is merely a guarantee to the other two amalgamating funds that their interests are not impacted by another company's (CER's) class action issues. I know I would definitely want this same guarantee if the shoe was on the other foot.

Thirdly, the vote for aggregation ultimately rests with Orbis and the other major hedge funds. The harsh reality is that the rest of us shareholders don't really have much of a say anyway.

Fourthly, the fact we are going from 49% to 14.5% ownership is purely a mathematical reality and reflects what we are bringing to the table. Our interests will be going from $1B (CER) in net assets to $4.4B (CRA). CER contributes about a third of the assets (half of which is owned by CNP/Senior Lenders) leaving us with 14.5%. I don't know why this number is so troubling. As I mentioned above, other than the hedge funds, we don't have much of a say anyway, so I don't get too bogged down with "percentage ownership". I do acknowledge however that we are providing liquiidity to some of the other funds and would happily welcome a sweetener in this regard (2-5c per share for approving the aggregation).

Finally, in relation to "alternatives", I foresee a messy, convoluted and dividend-less process. Nothing but more pain, suffering and uncertainty. Oh yes, and many more millions in legal, restructuring and consultancy fees.

And for what?...2c per share dividend, some time in the next decade.... Someone please tell me I'm getting this all wrong.....