My take on the Quarterly, and almost all quarterlies for that...

My take on the Quarterly, and almost all quarterlies for that matter, is that they are a regulatory obligation that requires the company to set out what has occurred and is publicly known up until the “as at” date - in this case 31 December as well as disclosures around financial performance.

There is no obligation to use a quarterly to (a) make new announcements that may be incomplete or inconclusive in their nature, or (b) expand on what is already publicly known by adding new information that may be incomplete or inconclusive in their nature, or (c) advising on confidential developments that have transpired since the “as at” date that may also be incomplete or inconclusive.

A quarterly is not intended as a marketing document. It is a regulatory document.

It would be rare and unusual for the timing of a quarterly to perfectly align with the timing of new, market sensitive, news that is timed right for market release. Therefore no point painting half pictures. And the timing of such things can be deliberately sequenced to gain maximum effect.

Continuous disclosure obligations take care of the timing of the big new development announcements.

It would make more sense and be more appropriate to separate the meeting of the regulatory obligations of filing a quarterly and the more exciting marketing and song and dance routine that would come with a new information that is comprehensive, new and complete that can be presented in a way that is different to a quarterly.

That’s why I think this quarterly was seen as underwhelming by some on here. There is a lot of activity going on however as at 31 December it was incomplete and inconclusive and not in a state to be a credible market release as a part of the quarterly.