Ann: Change in substantial holding, page-19

My choice has been to avoid.
You can find all sorts of parallels from seemingly honourable seeders and asset vendors and all the capital seduction and letdowns right through to this example now.
I dont see this as worse (as neglectful as it may seem) between the latest gigs and those of the original seeders and prior management and song and dance routines.
Might be more tender in the present tense to some but to me it's just the same.
Many unjust moves within the law and around and sometimes inside the edges
And the amount of times the magic lawful pie goes around is amazing but its very often missing integrity. Someone always has to lose even if someone wins.
That's the market but this end of it that spread expands from lose to die and win to windfall.
Risk. Lots of it . Reward. Not as much as advertised but definitely there.
Does it make the lesser informed (dutifully informed market),suckers, stupid, gullible or Hard done by ?
That is the way of spec markets which almost never deliver on any given package of capital.
Some outfits are slicker, most seeders and vendors are much smarter and almost all can't lose no matter what, but most of the punters just have our instincts to go by.
I've found I can never count on a sense of justice as in a sense of integrity in any such market except the most liquid and even there I have to be prepared to change my mind fast as it's only a fleeting perception. If I choose to invest in this end of market I am laying with dogs or their dog equivalent imitators.
Who might still make windfall bit rarely through integrity.
Good and bad makes winds to sail with or against, regulators or none (mostly none)
And the good sonetimes turns out bad (and vice versa).
Despite all that, I think you are a born politician and that is where some rare individuals with integrity find some real power