Ann: Information For Retail Shareholders, page-532

Hi @Bazsa,

good points/ great analysis.

If you are suggesting that Instos not on the register could have been excluded from the offer, I can't agree with the idea of an exclusively Retail (no Insto) rights issue as a 'missed opportunity' (altho, granted, the Insto Entitlement portion was in fact fully subscribed). The existence of a moderately high percentage of shorts in the stock register would IMO have made a fully and solely Retail approach less appealing I think, even with the Placement, and for at least 3 reasons, viz:

1. difficulties in legally dividing up the register;

2. need to arrange/ net off expensive underwriting, absent Insto participation. I just read a research paper showing that (across 60-odd ASX rights issues) the risk of a shortfall that was sold down by the issuer to the underwriter was significantly overpriced by 0.60% of the offer price, representing 49% of the underwriting fee, on average;

3. need to explain to Instos that have participated previously in CRs how this can fit long-tem funding needs, i.e. when we are still pre-breakeven & in this universe we are not guaranteed what other capital MSB may need before it gets over the line. The CR could easily just piss them off; and risk increasing, dangerous volatility in shorting behaviours (if an Insto Entitlement wasn't factored in).

And I think that the real value is, in fact, the $$ in the bank - to me, if the company is able to make this achievement, and ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE thinks the CR wasn't quite good enough, well that's just about the definition of perfection in politics. We can call it good management.

PS: Any word on the Placement?

Cheers
GLTAH