Coby was asked at the Melbourne investor presentation whether...

Coby was asked at the Melbourne investor presentation whether anyone has been accumulating largish shareholdings and he said they're not seeing any evidence of that.

He was also asked when will the company relaease an updated top 20 shareholder list. He said it changes so frequently that as soon as they come up with a new list, it changes again. He also said the number one shareholder was still an Israeli investor, or Fund (I can't recall which) and they are at 5% of total shares. So if the top shareholder is only at 5%, eveyone else has less than 5% (sorry for stating the obvious), and IMO this indicates a very wide spread shareholding.

IMO (it might be a ASX Disclosure rule but I'm not sure), if a potential take over company started to accumulate shares and it caused them to enter into and up the top 20 shareholdings, let's say they crept up towards 3%, 4%, 5%, I believe Weebit would be obligated under the ASX continuous disclsore rules to make an announcement. At the very least they would publish a new Top 20 list.

All this means it would be very unlikely that a takeover bidder can get past about 5% before their intentions would become public. Of course they could speculate that they're investing in Weebit for other purposes, but speculation would rise that a takeover might be brewing. As one HC wrote, maybe they could disguise their takeover by purchasing shares under multiple different compant names. Then we'd see 3, 4, 5+ new companies entering into the Top20 shareholder list each with 1, 2 or 3 percent shareholding. Can that go unnoticed? IMO, not. Let's say, no one notices. Maybe they creep up to 10-15%. Very unlikely.

If it's a hostile takeover and management don't want it to happen, surely Weebit would at the very least publish an updated Top20 list. The very definition of a hostile takeover is thatWeebit don't want it to happen so they's do whatever they can to prevent it. In other words, management can use the disclosure rules to their advantage by revealing that companies are accumulating shares and it it is a building takeover, management springs them in the act.

If management is cooperating with the takeover i.e. looking into whether it's best for the company and, hopefully, the existing shareholders, IMO it becomes an immediate disclosure event. Coby has always looked after weebit shareholders. He's probably got a tattoo with "I love my shareholders" on it. IMO there's little to no chance he'd let a hostile takeover sneak through the back door and not reveal it to the market. Equally, if he lets them through the front door, i.e. it's a friendly takeover that weebit BOD and management are willing to consider, IMO there's little risk that they don't put the existing shareholders' interest as one of their highest priorities.