Sal...you are missing the point. Entirely! My point...actually...

Sal...you are missing the point. Entirely! My point...actually the point any person with a passing acquaintance with accounting would make (sorry!, couldn't resist)....is that usage of scrip to settle any obligations has no impact on profitability, as it is not an expense. It is simply a currency of choice.

Granted, that retail investors don't like it as it dilutes their ownership share....and depresses the value per share and hence share price....but it does not affect the profitability of the company. I'm unclear why this is a point on which we need to "agree to disagree". It's like agreeing to disagree on the existence of gravity! Furthermore, it does not matter whether is is current liabilities, past liabilities or indeed future liabilities that are being paid by scrip....it is simply the currency of choice.

The more pertinent question you should ask (if I may humbly suggest), is why is scrip Ted's currency of choice, for now? Is it because he finds that cash is more usefully (valuably?) reserved for other obligations? And paired with that, if organically generated cash is more valuable elsewhere, then of the remaining sources available (debt and equity), is it that equity is cheaper than debt (for now)? Or is it that sources of debt are tapped out? Or that current sources of debt are only deployable for Net Zero and not for other working capital? Or a bit of all three debt constraints? And if equity is the remaining choice available, then using is scrip as currency as opposed to raising cash through a scrip placement, cheaper and faster? And is the dilutionary pain of scrip as a source of funds (for Ted as the largest shareholder) abated by the performance rights that Ted knew he would almost certainly get? And/or is the dilutionary pain of scrip as a currency for payment of obligations trivial against the existential void of the alternative? And is the 'juice worth the squeeze'...ie, is the upside potential commensurate with the downside risks? And perhaps finally, given all this, does EN1 deserve to be/remain in my portfolio, and if so, at what weighting?

I think these are the objective questions that I would rather ponder as they help me make a less superficial judgement. Of which I may still be entirely wrong.

All IMO and GLTA. DYOR.