I will continue to keep a low profile but thought this is worth...

I will continue to keep a low profile but thought this is worth to mention:

PAUL HOPPER 94,994,574 17.94
LIND GLOBAL FUND II LP 17,624,724 3.33
CHRISTINE BROWN 11,696,565 2.21
MICHAEL E BARISH 11,522,634 2.18
ZERRIN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD 9,600,001 1.81
JENNIFER CHOW 9,450,924 1.79
HSBC CUSTODY NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED 9,437,237 1.78
CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED 8,540,926 1.61
SHARED OFFICE SERVICES PTY LTD <PHILANNE S/F A/C> 6,521,739 1.23
VALENTINO TRADING PTY LTD 5,500,000 1.04
KAMALA HOLDINGS PTY LTD <THE KAMALA 1994 S/F A/C> 5,447,142 1.03
AUSTRALIAN DIRECT INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED <SUPER FUND A/C> 5,060,000 0.96
LIBERTY NATIONAL PTY LTD <LIBERTY NATIONAL FAMILY A/C> 5,000,000 0.94
UBS NOMINEES PTY LTD 4,945,588 0.93
MR LUTZ STEFFENS & MRS KATY STEFFENS 4,303,341 0.81
SOLIUM NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD 4,087,272 0.77
MR TIM BENSLEY & MS JENNY JIAER ZHANG 3,961,562 0.75
BNP PARIBAS NOMINEES PTY LTD <IB AU NOMS RETAILCLIENT DRP> 3,655,335 0.69
ALPHA BETA SUPERANNUATION SERVICES PTY LTD <THE ALPHA BETA
SF A/C> 3,357,142 0.63
BRISPOT NOMINEES PTY LTD <HOUSE HEAD NOMINEE A/C> 3,243,205 0.61
227,949,911 43.06



According to the results about 130-140m votes were casted. Assuming Hopper, the board and a few others voted with all their shares then hardly anyone of the rest cared about voting at all. Hence the 95-99% YES-votes. And just as the results were published the RI extension, as predicted, was announced.

At IMU and last time here the extension was announced 1 day before cut off date, this time much earlier. All works perfectly like at IMU, announce a hugely discounted RI which, according to the company's progress, should have been taken up in a blink of an eye. But here comes the ASX way of thinking: The lower the price, despite the increased quality, the more retail sells and stays away from it, opening the door for the instos. To get the regular entitlement a holder can get a max of 2 for 3. But when it comes to distribute the shortfall the board can make up the rules, could theoretically allocate the shortfall to a "1 share" holder.

The CEO yesterday made a nice comparison of CHM's value to peers, especially ALA now worth about 85-90m EV while CHM gets valued about 5-10m EV. Looking at the assets of both one has to scratch her / his head to figure out why. The Chair answered my question yesterday, I acknowledged it in an email to him and accepted the given answer - Not intended to benefit instos and that 2.8c is actually a premium to the all time low of 2.5c. It is now up to you guys to make up your mind. If IMU is an example to go by then in the end retail will have handed over their shares at the 3c level to the instos just to see the sp rise shortly after.

Incredible GBM, NK and soon CD17 results and yet EV going to ZERO. The J Ruffo doko at CH7 yesterday should have triggered a huge interest but if a Mercedes Benz worth 100k is offered for 5k then you can hardly convince any buyer that the car is 100% ok. Who will in the end buy it? Another card dealer shark, selling it the next day for 100k to one of those who hesitated the day before because paying 95k more ensured her / him to have bought a quality product. Similar to the sales lesson I've learned: How expensive do I have to make it to make you buy it? Sounds silly but I had to ask the question many many times when working in sales. The share market is the only place where people are afraid to grab a bargain. CHM is a perfect example.

Due to the above scenario I have decided to do what I have done for many many years, playing the " Bank / Insto " game and not the " Player / Retail " game. If there is a fair shortfall distribution then a lot more stock should end up in my hands then I had before. At almost ZERO EV the risk / reward can't be ignored. IMU is / has been the "Dress Rehearsal" for CHM.

GLTA