gem funding, page-16

The drawdowns are at our discretion, but no drawdown means no money. Looking at RAI they chose not to drawdown. That probably says something, and they secured other finance. Mind you if it strengthens GGP then we could do the same. Put it in place as a back up and only drawdown if needed while trying to find something better (JV??)

Looking at FMJ their was atleast one 3B for $700k, not sure if their were other drawdowns. Impossible to know if they held or sold as they never reached 5% reporting level.

But I know all the line of equity providers claim they are strategic investors and in it for the long haul. Look at LJ at INT or BNE and how they were welcomed onboard. And how its turned out. Look at the LJ website and they would make you think they are LT investors. They arent. They just dump.

I agree $30mil is probably closer to the mark, but $15mil is still a huge leg up.

I note you are sceptical of Alimold moving to greater than 20% and avoiding take over clause. But I think you'll find GEM was in same position.

They would either be forced to sell regularly or exceed 20%. It's easier to do as underwriter but still possible with line of equity with the appropriate asx waiver.

I think SG is just a control freak. Probably not that uncommon.

Now that "an alternative" is out in the open, GGP really need to make public their funding solution. It's not ok to just do nothing and hope it goes away.

Are their many examples of rising sp on asx with GEM deals?