Ann: MAK: Seventh Supplementary Bidders Statement, page-5

re: Ann: MAK: Seventh Supplementary Bidders S... Various things

1. Don't think I saw any reference in MAK's nth Supplementary Statement to reaffirm their belief in the previous statement that the MAK directors "regarded" (an opinion: not fact?) Paterson's views as an indepedent endorsement of MAK's desire that we take up the offer.

2. I haven't received any reply (or even an acknowledgement) from the Chairman (or any of his subordinates) of a famous Securities firm. It is better that they don't know what use their research is put to by their clien?: whoa, can't finish that word - the research was "independent", so they weren't a "c" but were an entity that just happened to find the research and just happened to display it on their web site.

3. I have put in a full page of typed A4 into the ASX Complaints Dept. (not about that) but about the some of the questionable tactics used to get me to switch. The worst I asked for was a mild rebuke to reign in some of the annoying MAK statements to the ASX. I have been so angered by it all, that like a wasp with it arse on fire, I've read quite a lot of your ASX "admission to listing" agreement and the Corporations Act (I don't normally read boring stuff like that). Rule 19 dot something of course allows the ASX not to apply any of its own rules. So that is quite handy.
:(

4. Mehdiabad valuation. Most binary stockmarket gambles are priced midway between the two possible outcomes in my experience. A zero valuation for an entity with no debt flies in the face of the efficient markets hypothesis (Trivett's valuation was biased?). If I were a MAK holder trying to justify a zero valuation for Mehdiabad, I would have said "it is worth zero because even the UCL directors have written it off", but of course nobody did. A good reason for it to be zero would have been "look, your directors wrote it off, so they could give it away as a freebie to new investors without being overly encumbered with the continuous disclosure requirements". I have no idea if those are our directors' intentions - I think I was right to criticise OUR directors about that at the time they wrote down Mehdiabad (it is too late to do it when they sell it off for next to nothing as then they can say "what are you criticising us for when it is in the books at nil?").

5. Iran. Joe Biden said yesterday the regime will be gone within 2 years. I think I have said it before I think the West will soon come to the conclusion that regime change is the only option. If America has managed to put men on the moon, it must be possible to work out a way to bring about regime change without Iranians feeling it has been imposed from outside against their wishes. How, I don't know but I am sure it will happen. Satellite photos appeared yesterday showing suspected clean-up operations at Parchin around a single building the IAEA want access to and to which they have repeatedly been denied access. The earth was a different colour (no way of knowing if that is a photoshop job or due to a "time of day" light effect or if it is an earth-change job). I am sure if Iran was led by a woman like Shirin Ebadi, Mehdiabad would be worth more than MAK's market cap.

6. The fund raising is taking place earlier than it otherwise would have due to this wretched takeover battle. I blame MAK for that and the resultant give-away of some un-derisked value on Mehdiabad to MB Holdings. At the end of this year, Mehdiabad might be worth a huge amount more for all I know. So that is quite annoying - yes, I see we have no choice.

7. I am not bothering to complain to the Takeover Panel. If there is anything serious in my complaint, the ASX can refer it itself. After all we are not talking "false markets" or "material mis-statements", although cumulatively a lot of minor mis-statements undoubtedly facilitate over a long period of time migration of wealth from the less informed to the less-than-honest. "Wonarah has proximity to regional population centre, Tenant Creek" undoubtedly helps to portray, albeit an immaterial amount, that Wonarah is more economic than it perhaps is.

8. Mak's strategy seems to be to corner the phosphate market to force NMDC to take it seriously.

9. Mr Drummond's visit to Morocco was perhaps not arranged so that he could view a competitor plant. My guess is he just showed up and tried to flog Wonarah to them and out of embarrassment (or North African hospitality) they showed him around the plant.

10. Mak's share price performance when it went from 19 cents to over $2 will probably never happen again in my view. I suspect that (I've not researched it) that came about as a result of it being perceived as a simple earth moving business with potential profits that were massively leveraged to minute movements in the phosphate price. The outlook for MAK now is as an earth moving business with a massive phosphoric acid manufacturing business tacked on all enclosed inside a massive entity like NMDC, and that this will give it a very different risk reward profile in the future compared to what it has had in the past. (Makes it a less volatile more boring investment if the deal with NMDC happens?)

11. I don't have a crystal ball, so no idea which investment will perform better in the future. I am irrationally attached to our Iranian asset so I am sticking with UCL (although I do want our Board NOT to do some of the things I worry about such as selling off Mehdiabad cheaply or giving it away to new investors). I will never entertain being cheated out of UCL by the dubious tactics Mak and some of its followers on the other thread have used, so of course I am not finished with them. (I feel another complaint coming on to the ASX - this time against the Chairman of a famous securities firm - for non-reply to previous complaint?).

12. In going from 3 shareholders in NMP to 2, I can't see how that makes much difference. MAK argues that it does. I would agree if it was the case from 2 to 1, but not from 3 to 2. No more thoughts. Sorry.