Classic case of the rich get richer. No scale backs for those holding >$150k (funny how the directors fall into this bracket).
They have the capability to identify holders with >12-month holdings, OR those who haven't sold or flipped shares (you know who you are) in recent months OR even those shareholders who participated in the previous raises and could have chosen not to scale back these participants.
Alternatively, a holder with >$150k invested, adding another $30k (20%) shows less commitment to the company than someone who held less than $30k applying for >100% uplift in their holdings direct to company coffers.
And I'd wager that missing $154k is going to the directors who haven't bought a share on market in the last 2 years.
12% of the total shareholders got 51% of the allocation. Would love for anyone here to explain to me how this is fair and equitable. What happened to Aussies giving everyone a "fair go" instead of these gifts for mates bs.
Shouldn't have done a SPP in the first place, always creates a drag on the share price. But another case of a Board choosing to do a SPP and then not being fair and equitable - remember this when they ask for another $3,000,000 in options and an increase in Board fees.
my biggest problem, i never sell.
(20min delay)