I can't see who you are responding to @H&AT as I have them...

I can't see who you are responding to @H&AT as I have them blocked, but here are 5 more to add to your already solid list:

7. Managing an IT company requires a completely different skill set from running a cooperative. CAP’s leadership and operational structure are designed for financial and member-driven decision-making, not for the high-risk, high-innovation environment of IT development.

8. Taking over Spenda would mean CAP stepping into the world of ASX listed company regulations, IT governance, and software compliance standards. That’s a headache they don’t need when they can just invest and benefit without the burden.

9. Any move to take over Spenda could be met with resistance from existing shareholders who see value in an independent Spenda. Hostile takeovers or forced acquisitions are rarely smooth and could damage CAP’s reputation among investors and their business partners.

10. CAP isn’t in the business of concentrating risk. Their strength lies in spreading investments across industries, ensuring steady returns. Owning an IT company outright would tie up capital in a volatile sector, which is not in line with their risk appetite.

11. CAP benefits more from Spenda’s market growth and if Spenda succeeds independently, CAP benefits as a major investor without needing to worry about operational execution. Owning it outright could slow down innovation, disrupt existing customer relationships, and ultimately hurt its own investment.