A couple of reasons why I think the underwriter might hold on to...

A couple of reasons why I think the underwriter might hold on to a substantial number of shares for while.

Firstly, if the underwriter wanted as little exposure to any shortfall as possible, then the underwriter would want to see shareholders able to acquire more than there allocation. If they wanted to have exposure to shares, then they would want to restrict shareholders from acquiring more than there allocation. In this case, only shareholders with an unmarketable parcel (usually less than $500) could apply for more than their pro rata allocation. This indicates to me that the underwriter wanted a reasonable allocation of shares.

Secondly, from a quick review of the change in director interest notices, it appears that all directors took their full allocation. Whilst a number of the directors did not have many shares to begin with and therefore could not contribute substantially, Tony Sage acquired an additional 30,568,770 shares at a cost of $489,100 - a substantial vote of confidence in the future and would encourage the underwriter to hang on to a substantial number of shares.