ok thx 1. I happened to notice, re the balance of 281.25m shares...

ok thx
1. I happened to notice, re the balance of 281.25m shares = 46.875m x 6mths = exactly?
also, in a/cs, Note Page 9 shows the $71,875 from Lanstead which is Nov and Dec drawdowns.
So I think the Sept payment from Lanstead of $843,750 is included in Contributions of Capital figure of $1,009,037? (unless there is other CR proceeds?).

2. what we see for first time is the description of Sharing Agreement named an Equity Swap Arrangement !
They value this Swap under the Monte Carlo model (which is used for valuing Options etc). Monte Carlo model seems an appropriate name for the LWP "bet".
(Why call it a sharing agreement when one side gets all the benefit for little risk, and the other side gets all risk, all downside, and little benefit?)

3. Auditors value balance of the "swap" ie the remaining undrawn balance of $4.2m as only $173,251. So that just goes to prove what a crock of S##t the LWP response was to the ASX - when ASX queried why LWP did not get s/h approval for the investment in FRB.
I think there is more to the fact that the Auditors have decided this Sharing Agreement is in fact a Swap - but am not clear what the implications are.
LWP directors argued that the assets of LWP at June 2016 were about $10m.
They stated that because they said that Lanstead had made an investment of about $6m. I think they argued that the Sharing Agreement allowed LWP to claim the $5.6m sent back to lanstead was a "deposit' ie an asset of LWP.
And here we are, just a matter of months down the track, and the value of that "investment" of $4.2m is worth just $173,000.
I said at the time that this Lanstead deal was baloney. The claim that LWP had secured CR funding of $6m was rubbish. That undrawn funding was always only contingent funding.

hey, but its OK, because it is only shareholders money that has pee'd down the toilet.

it is the integrity of the ASX which suffers in all of this.

cheers