Ann: Response to ASX Query Letter, page-64

jdon,

Welcome, I've upvoted the views you've expressed, I believe in free exchange of ideas even those that don't align with mine or my personal interests notwithstanding....

Ok so let's assume hypothetically the game has all been a ruse, this I stress is hypothetical.

If someone is aiming to hoodwink investors, they have to have a game plan to exit the hypothetical sinking ship. I look at such a situation dispassionately and imagine how could someone do that. Ok so if your are a director or chairman of such a company, you have been getting a wage or salary for years lets say $300-500k per year for 10 years, I guess that's $3mio, but on the other side of the ledger and in the case with akp for instance, the Fred Bart & family have pumped much more of their personal money to keep the dream alive so to speak, incl. friends, associates and close contacts as well as key company execs / management. As a result they have a significant holding in the company, in Fred's case say 20-30% which at the current sp is worth $150-200mio. So assuming hypothetically he has pumped $10-15mio to date (low end), has received $3-5mio in directors fees, you'd have to pull $10mio out in stock value to break even. This forgets the reputational impact / other implications / corporate investigation etc....

And this assumes that such hypothetical grand plan at poker has been playing out for 10-15years, where you could have just parked that wealth into a fund and have tripled the money invested already, but let's just assume for this hypothetical exercise that you are just trying to get out what you bought in at (implausible).

To sell down significantly it can't be done on the open market as the daily volume is insignificant. If one was selling dribbles every day over the years, someone would have found out by now surely?

The only way out in my view is the product is brought to commercialization, allowing big holders to sell out. Or at the very least the technology is so close to commercialization that a mug with serious cash is prepared to buy Fred & co out. Would you throw $15-20mio on something without independent verification?

Would you not obtain the services of a independent audio / mems / blah blah expert with a decent level of Professional indemnity insurance to verify and report? Surely?

Maybe that milestone (the flux capacitor works) isn't at the stupendous heights we are envisaging, but at worst it requires the company to achieve a milestone such that the company has a product that works and can be demonstrated, and that can be independently produced.

Oh, and if the ruse is complete, a fab let's assume t jaz who is in on the ruse? Now the probability though not impossible seems more improbable?

I'm not saying your theory is impossible, but more improbable.

I've seen this in companies that achieve a commercialization goal yet the numbers / profits / costs don't stack up as promised...

Yet here it's a black and white proposition, either the technology works or doesn't. No one is going to stump up the required capital especially to the figurehead to allow them to exit after 10-15years, only to have the thing not work?

The hypnotical options could be thus:
1. Key people in the company know it works, announce more delays so the price drops to allow cheaper buy in;
2. It doesn't work announce a delay watch the share price drop and hold onto the ruse as long as they can;
3. Or it works finally...

Conversely I ask myself why people, whom I have never seen post or comment on the company, who won't haven't disclosed interest suddenly write articles, or post about an unknown company out of the blue, so close to the theoretical promise of wealth, and I ask myslelf, what is more probable, a ruse played out over 10-15yrs or people who have got a sniff of promise, but don't want to miss out on an opportunity to buy in?

dyor.

gltah