Ann: Change in substantial holding from WAM/WAA, page-6

Thanks for explaining your point.

There was a strategy in wilsons holdng that is no longer as valid IMO so not needed and he is exposed by fund investment indirectly.

''I think they would take it over. Retain all future profits for themselves. Additionally they'll face scrutiny and bad PR as a listed company if they don't distribute profits properly where possible to shareholders.''

IMO some ASX directors and managers are very good at ensuring fees , bonus, extra payments etc ensure there is little in kitty IMO for minor holders and they have controlling interest and managment control. Also have very thick skins and minority holders have very small voice hence most investors don't ever wish to be last man standing minority holders . Will only know just what these guys are up to and teh viability of business in hindsight as time moves on.

I hope it works for you but I also hope you can see and appreciate why there are risks and probable risks and it is not all just related to how many choccys are sold. Moreso YOW is not really a choccy business as value is in content etc but not sure if scale will be achieved and the non choccy side be leveraged off enough to actually generate a income. Choccy IMO are just a lead in to the enviro message and link to childs parenst and child with that digital footprint a very valuable item if done correctly at scale. Digital assett and profile or coustomers is vastly more valuable IMO than marginal choccy sales.