Dare to Dream, page-9

I don't assert you are an "unreasonable person" that would be an attack on your character, and it's not, I don't know you. What I do assert is that your conclusion based on the evidence is unreasonable.

• "Empirical evidence re the announcement of an OTC listing would support the fact that at the very least it may be, and in many instances, is."

Really? I've never seen any, but would love to read up on it if there is. Additionally, your claim is that a secondary OTC listing as an isolated event can drive share price materially, so the evidence would have to support that claim. I don't doubt that a private company listing on the ASX can drive SP materially, that's an argument for public and private liquidity, your claim is different however as it's simply a second listing in another market.

With respect to your dates and price chart, I couldn't reconcile any of it with the data here on the ASX, I was using close prices and the soonest I could find was in October, you are using intra-day highs I guess? Notwithstanding the initial price increase after the OTC was only 9.3% for a 14 day period, before the Monash partnership was announced, followed by the offtake. I'm not sure how you can on one hand claim the OTC announcement was responsible for significant price appreciation some 14 days later, but not responsible for the move down a month later, when 5 significant price sensitive announcements occurred within those dates.

The main run up happened between 9 June and 3 November which was many months and more than 17 price sensitive announcements post your claimed OTC momentum "event".

There is no place within your timeline (even if i accept your intraday high on March 9) which make your claims clear or conclusive.

Quite frankly if you presented this as a study for peer review, it would be torn to pieces. Its quite obvious to anyone who cares to look and consider the facts objectively, there are too many obfuscating events to make any concrete conclusion reasonable. It's pure speculation at best that the OTC was responsible for a "136% gain". In fact in my opinion it's complete absurd.

• "Guess it's a case of each to their own and thus far investors in PO3 have not done too badly by themselves in following my HC posts. I suspect their joy will only increase in the future"

That may be true, but I don't think it will be because of your OTC case study, PO3 will get there for other reasons. Quite presumptive of you to think everyone here is making money BECAUSE OF YOU. lol!