"clearly unarmed person" lol. listen clown, the point of my...

"clearly unarmed person" lol. listen clown, the point of my post, if you even bothered to read and understand the context of it, was solely related to the information given that was attached to the 3Y. this has nothing to do with the performance of AU so stop deluding your self with your spin.

without having to spell it out for your illiteracy, him selling shares to cover cost of exercising while reducing his net indirect interest, and describing it as a benefit to shareholders, is what i call patronizing bs.

if you think AU doesnt have access to 180k without selling shares then its probably reasonable to say that a) you do not have such amount b) consider it an egregious amount (which its not at their level) c) you are likely in love with the company or its directors. and if i needed access to 180k all i would have to do is sell one position of mine in the morning, pay an early settlement fee and have access to the funds in the afternoon. but i pose AU this question, which is what you should be asking- why not do exactly that and front up the cash instead of having to sell on market (at clear resistance point) to get the money to exercise the options while reducing his net indirect interest? its bloody brilliant to make that move in my view. but the "benefit to shareholders" is bs, just like your position in the matter.

to end this pointless conversation, ask your self this you closet genius- does this transaction benefit the most- AU or shareholders? and why take this benefit and now? if there wasnt that borderline hoodwinking bs explanation in the 3Y, then i wouldnt have said a word and assessed accordingly instead of hearing whats good for me in clownlike fashion.