"co-incidences"..?, page-50

Hello Kranky,

We need to put your comment into context.

"Management giving away ESIO for nothing, doesn't create confidence"

"The good thing though is once the ESIO are in the money and converted a stack of dollars should come though the door in early 2014 all being well."

Kranky, it's worth considering that sometimes in order to be "in the money", a company (in particualr a Spec stock) needs to make strategic alliances to give the company and SP a lift...the choice of debt vs equity to make this happen.

If it was just a case of using options to secure funding only then we would see the likes of La Jolla still on the radar. It's clear to me that ECT have engaged with Monash/IMFA for reasons other than the money they bring alone.

You made a comparison between MNM and ESI regarding dilution recently, and while you have made your point (specific to dilution) you are comparing MNM that has equity in the ground which can be used to secure deals compared to ESI selling a technology. So off the bat you have 1 company sitting in a privelidged position-hence lower dilution. I dont think your point of dilution clearly reflects which board of which company is doing a better job, it is a case of 2 different business models.

It is why you have ESI then striking an agreement on EL5119. It may seem like small bickies to some, but this is the type of move made from the board at ECT to hedge this issue of dilution moving forward.

I think that ECT has shed light on the subject of dilution and articulated their strategy in the 15.06.2012 ASX Ann. Pg3. They have till 2014 to make something from the decisions made in recent times, and I think they will-IMHO of course.

Time will tell

Best of luck to all