Well I always love replies that don't actually give the accurate...

Well I always love replies that don't actually give the accurate numbers in response to allegations of inaccuracy:

Firstly its amazing how selective we can be: We point out again how well we have done for the past 5 years but then in addressing the share trading / Investment losses we suddenly use 6 years - guess why. - because in 2018 we made a profit of $479866. I must say I am disappointed that management would have been this selective. If you start at 2018 the profit after tax was $2369718 and 2023 (excluding Abnormal items) - this was in fact a loss of $766374 - This is straight from page 47 of the 2023 AFS. The presentation - well I cannot reconcile the presentation as it refers to $4.1 million whereas I can only see 2 one is impairment of intangible assets $1.67 million and consideration for business acquired of $1.494 million. I have never heard of the second one. So I have no idea how you can call this growth.

I suppose I have to admit my own failing and its that I could not have done a great job in my assessment given all this gaps in reconciling the results.

So the losses on shares: Firstly now that 2018 was good then they include them however add up the table. They still lost $188,976 since 2018 to 1 May 2024. This loss despite the fact that the all share increased over the same period by 24.8%. So this is the quality of the investment committee - I wonder who constitutes the investment committee.

"The share portfolio pre-dates SEQ’s ownership of Interprac." - So what is this meant to mean that Interprac ran this before and thus the SEQ board doesn't take responsibility or are they saying that this is an interprac problem - I just don't understand the relevance of saying this. This is a very important letter so every sentence would be relevant...Now this portfolio is in orderly winddown. Why? and if it is it has been performing badly at a level you would have expected management and the board to have focused upon it a lot earlier. - This is just my opinion. I certainly missed this but I didn't have access to the records...

"There are appropriate controls around trading of the portfolio and any acquisitions require Board approval." - In light of this the board is totally responsible for all the share trading/ investments. Given the performance its not something I would highlight as positive to the defense team??? Maybe I am not understanding what they are saying - anyone have any ideas.

The advisors - Wow I really don't have any idea what to conclude - there are advisors not registered or are general advisors and 24 are studying. Really this is as clear as mud. Maybe this is reflective of the industry but I have no idea how to measure the actual growth or decline in numbers and isn't there another better set of numbers - I am sure that Netwealth ( although not directly comparable) would not be having this issue. I have an investment in FID and I have never felt that I could not understand the performance.

I cannot see how after spending $26 million after having delivered $2.6 million after tax 2018 then I would have expected a 15% return so around 10% after tax - that would mean almost doubling to $5.2 million... I don't see this as an accurate refection of performance - The company raises new areas in presentations and then they disappear.

I just don't understand how it's so hard to give an easy reflection of the company's performance.

As regards when and how many shares were accumulated - its irrelevant. The fact is that GC1 has owned shares in number since 2018 - they are a LIC and will buy and sell all the time. I think MG deserves credit for selling a lot at some point - I sold all of ours.

Why am I doing this ? Simply put I have to do a better job in my research and not just accept nice looking presentations - In fact if I was in some power I would require Auditors to review the annual presentation and confirm its accuracy.

These are all my own personal views and opinions - I do not have access to the books and records so have to rely on the data both sides have put out.