Sorry dltm You (and Tinwins) are absolutely right. I have not...

Sorry dltm

You (and Tinwins) are absolutely right.

I have not been following discussions carefully due to other distractions in life.

However, given a spate of recent SPPs, I just made a few posts in relation to these across various stocks I hold.

Saw your comment and responded on face value - my bad!

The point I am trying to make is that a poorly designed SPP leads to unnecessary share price weakness. Mostly from people selling their existing shares and then applying for shares in the SPP. This invariably leads to the share price approaching the (usually heavily discounted) SPP price.

I am not against the discount offered in SPPs, as long as the rest of the SPP is designed such that the share price does not approach the heavily discounted SPP price

A simply way to discourage this is to state in the SPP document that any shareholder selling shares post record date for the SPP will be ineligible to participate in the SPP.

Why obsess over this?

Because low volatility stocks usually perform better over the long term, which is what long term investors (like you and me) usually want to see. Introducing unnecessary and avoidable share price volatility during capital raising prevents a higher premium rating to be assigned to the stock in the long term.

The earlier CXL management strive for excellence in EVERYTHING they do (usually another hallmark of quality companies), the sooner investors will apply premium multiples to its earnings when valuing the company...

... hopefully we will soon have earnings to apply premium multiples against.

.... and I know I should not write this, because together with the Optus and Medibank leaks, people can work out my identity when I write that I too have already applied for my full allotment in the SPP.

DYOR