before the vote - what have we all learnt?, page-6

Punter 5 I agree with everything you stated. The biggest problem is that as investors we are happy just to continue to accept this behaviour. The system is designed to be prejudicial to any retail investor.These are my questions:

1. Why should a company be allowed to issue 15% equity to Insto's and dilute the present owners without shareholder approval. The spp they offer afterwards really is not a fair proposal. They should be forced to issue rights pro rata to holdings and only allow isto's to take up under an underwriting process. This way the Instos do make money even if they dont end up owning shares and at least the current shareholders get first bite.

2. Its clear that GTP and TIM could foresee the cash flow disasters at least 3 years away. If it so easy for the reciver to project income than it was just as easy to realise that without fast growing new MIS investors the businesses were doomed. So yes where were the directors and where were thw auditors. - No one ever gets justice.

3. The commission chairman said he had heard rumours of things being done that shouldn't. It seems that this rort was well known in the industry yet no-one acted as Ombudsmen to protect the investors.

4. ASIC is a real disaster and even though they only take on a few cases - they seem to have a good record of not even proving those. We need a crack police driven process where claims (or charges) can be investigated and dealt with.

5. Too many companies are allowed to list or offer products that are not yet proven or without capital adequacy being proved. How many of these company's list only to keep having to raise capital each year although the project remains the same. Listing and or public offer requirements should have much higher burdens of proof of both concept and capital adequacy.

6. Companies giving investment reports should face a burden of liability for the accuracy of what they report. How can you value a property based on an inflated lease price. At the end of the lease the property value plummets. What are you an expert of it you didn't see that.

7. The RE auditor should not be the same as the promoters auditor and the RE auditor should have a specific burden to prove capital adequacy to completion of each project. The funds should not just be lumped into the promoters cash it should remain separate throughout the period of the scheme.

This whole thing stinks and these senate hearing or commissions are just to legitimise the rape IMO. After all the talk nothing more is done we are just left to finally accept its all gone and the drama filled hearings are to slowly get us to accept our fate.

How do you research when even the professionals seem to be party to the process or fudging and mist that surrounds these schemes.