Sorry but I disagree with that statement. If you truly believe...

Sorry but I disagree with that statement. If you truly believe that statement I believe it has created affirmative confirmation bias in your decision making on investing.

In any case, The rules are set by hot copper. This fortunately IMHO is not one.

It's a pity there are other rules that aloow bias however. Like the lack of ability to private message. Or the lack of requirement to declare your interest in the company being discussed. Like Employee, friend of board member, fund manager, broker involved in a recent CR etc

But no. If they banned people who were not holders from posting, how would you ever get a different view on the prospects of a company at any given time from someone who wasn't biased with the fact that they had committed a direct financial stake.

Skin in the game as it's called means an investor has taken risk. One of those risks is confirmation bias.

Lack of Skin in the game can be a good thing in decision making about the future prospects of a company. It would be a pity not being able to know the thinking of people without this bias.

However don't mix the effect of lack of skin in the game of a small investor vs a director.

Directors have access to market sensitive information. And the ASX rules do not prevent them from decisions on how, and who and in what capacity gets potentially favorable treatment during the raising of capital. I believe lack of skin in the game in this instance directly influences their decision making.

All IMHO. Go Admedus. No advice and I wish holders well.





Cheers.