CDU is on track to be one of very few explorers who execute the...

CDU is on track to be one of very few explorers who execute the transition to producer without debt and without shiploads of shares on issue.

Take LYC for instance. Shares on issue = 11.3 times CDU!

So, on one hand people complain about dilution when there is a cap raising, and people complain when a buyback in happening. Often the same people complain about both.

What does this mean? It means that the complainants are too short sighted to see the management of the company is taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves.

In this case management is seizing the opportunity to buy shares they know can be sold for a higher price in the future, thereby raising capital from sources that are reliable investors.

Net result? No or limited dilution. Instead of dividends shared between 500 million shares, it is shared between 200 million shares. Much better for the strong shareholders.

If you don't get that, by now you should have put me on ignore. I'd chuffed if you did.

Moving on: Major shareholders: OW: Place on board, intend to hold 19.9%, want to hold 30%, Cornerstone shareholder, agreement to take 60% of our product, want 100% of it. Can afford cash injection easily. Now, that is pretty beneficial for the company, because OW will protect their interest against predators. Their business model is to make money from production of goods and dealing in commodities.

M&G: Not on board, hold a large, long position, not invited to join the cornerstone club. Are in this game to make money from money, so even if they intend to hold for dividends, they will need to be working their holdings along the way. They can't do this by simply holding the shares; (they could trade, but liquidity is a problem, trading to make money is not easy for a big holder like M&G, they have to use Autobots).

One course of action for them to take is to lend stock to short punters. M&G know they will get 10% lending the stock, they know they will get the stock back, and if they are wanting to pick up some cheapies, they know that they can do that at the expense of the very people they have loaned the stock to, who have used their borrowed stock to drive the SP down.

The little circle here is therefore: M&G loan stock to ShortPunter#1 who sells it on the market for more or less than what he borrowed it for. . ShortPunter#1 waits for the SP to fall 5c. Maybe it does, but ShortPunter is screwed because M&G have bought back their stock at -4cents. M&G make profit of 4c, 10% interest, now own more stock, which they loan out to ShortPunter#2.

ShortPunter#1 runs around like a chook with his head cut off for weeks blaming WM for his stupid buyback. ShortPunter#2 sells his borrowed stock on market.....etc..

Making sense? If so, you should have by now realized that CDU management (who make decisions based on facts and not conjecture) have a much better understanding of their position than anyone, and criticism of their judgment cannot justifiably be based on the opinions of wannabe company directors using a public share trading forum to make noise.