The credibility is NOT necessarily in question if the co choses...

The credibility is NOT necessarily in question if the co choses NOT to reply. Of course, there will always be a reply eg, Thank you for your email of ...., the contents of which have been noted. If there is MERIT and of such concern to the X or Y, then they may have to take it further ACCORDING TO disallowed RULES. Then, it has gone to the PROPER CHANNELS - OTHERWISE, WHY DOES THE NOMINATED ADVISOR HAS TO PASS EVERY RNS/ANN. Some of the CEO*s state to shareholders who ask that it has to also be PASSED BY LEGAL COUNSEL. YES, THE WORLD OF COMPLIANCE IS NORM.

If one were to write to a co listed on disallowed especially a major, there WILL BE A REPLY but they are NOT going to answer or to be at the end of explaining why holes X, Y etc. That is in fact of a more technical nature and they will answer but to the extent that a shareholders is giving what appears to be "OVERSIGHT.?

From all that I have read on this thread, of this and that, I do not think they are of a nature that is enquiring but rather ....?

Therefore, whatever that is said has to be answered should be done in such a way that there will be NO further implications. Hence, why I said, that only from what I understand from the Handbook, it should always be brought to the Nominated Advisor.

I have read the ACTUAL POSTS ON THIS FORUM AND THEY ARE VERY EXTENSIVE. Perhaps the emails may not have enclosed ALL THE POSTS ON THIS FORUM to give an overall but certainly from perception only, they are very detailed?

That*s all for now. Must run as it is late into the night. Pardon typos as I am not editing. Caveat: IT APPEARS and perception.

5 Aug 2021.