so you’re saying instead of us gaining 16% (i.e. a 100k...

so you’re saying instead of us gaining 16% (i.e. a 100k investment at the time of the first offer became 116k), that now we are losing MORE money because we got MORE shares, and post merger the share price has dropped?

I remember at the time you being fixated on share prices at different points in the merger timeline (contradicts your view I have a short memory) but what you have just said is insane.

Seriously, you shouldn’t be investing in the share market if your maths is that far off the pace, let alone flinging the proverbial at people on hotcopper. That is outrageously bad maths and financial literacy.

It isn’t “what works for me” it’s literally maths. It works the same way for both of us, you seriously need to get a financial advisor or accountant to explain it to you. What you’re saying is if instead of 12 median priced houses you got 14 median priced houses, and then the housing market went down a little bit (say 10%, you’ve lot more money because of the extra two house. You’re forgetting you gained 2 whole houses for nothing! Who cares if they’ve gone down a little bit, in my example your still 1.8 houses up having lost 10% paper value on both.

I would encourage you to stop talking about the merger and go back to sharing about connections and industry information that I actually value a lot of the time.