Please don't take my word for it. All the figures are readily verifiable (and derivable) from that single F604 and a SP chart or broker data feed that's compiled from ASX and Chi-X data. Btw, I mentioned a plausible explanation for his on-market disposals at ~$44.50 when active on-market traded prices during that time were much, much lower. Not sure where your $30 comes from (not from me) or its relevance here.
You keep insisting that he was shorting the market when it was impossible to do so. Based on your earlier comments, I assume you know that one cannot continue to sell on an almost daily basis for two weeks for a remarkably consistent price of ~$44.50/share when the highest price the market paid during that time was $26/share at the start of the campaign and prices fell much, much further as time went on and more share parcels were sold. It's simply not possible to sell on-market for a consistently higher price than the market is paying - further exacerbated by the fact that this price gap was actually widening. This is basic stuff and I'm frankly astounded, given your implied experience, that you're pushing that line. The remarkably consistent price that shares were progressively disposed of is the key here. The only way you can do that is either by exercising a previously purchased (long-dated?) put option that had a strike price of ~$44.50 or by delivering physical scrip holdings against a previously short-sold futures contract at the same price level (yep, I have futures experience too, but that's irrelevant here). I'm discounting the futures contract scenario on the basis that I don't think there's a futures market currently operating in FLT shares. Even if there was, the mechanics of how delivery would operate doesn't tend to fit the reporting.
Aside from all that, I understand your philosophical grievance. It appears to stem from the presumption that Geoff Harris (Gehar) is a insider, trading with some kind of special inside knowledge that gives him an unfair advantage over the average punter. Are you aware that he is not a Director? He and Bill James are both Founders, but not Directors. That's an important point to understand, which you appear to have overlooked. Your comments appear to be predicated on the assumption that he had director-level access to information, which is likely to be a problematic assumption wrt a non-director (since 2008).
To that end, I don't see a problem in Harris operating like any other substantial holder (philosophically or practically). In practical terms, the net sales volume amounted to 200k of shares. It's peanuts compared to the overall volumes traded during that time. If other shareholders were smart enough to take out some downside insurance on a portion of their holdings when prices were much higher, then all power to them too. The timing of issuing the new shares (i.e. for instos vs. retails) in this context is irrelevant and only adds to the confused messaging.
(20min delay)