gus simspon in indonesia, page-26

Shadders, I definitely could say the same about you. But I’ll refrain from using profanity.

I could easily reply to each and every ramping comment you have made against me in the form of a personal attack, but since you talk so highly of yourself, It’d be best for me to reply with Blunt Replies and let HC members make judgement.

First comment made by Shadders:
“But I’m sure if Gus, other directors or substantial share holders sold any of their shares, we would've had an ASX announcement confirming change in holding!

They would not have to put out the announcement the same day. IIRC they have a few days to issue the notice.”

REPLY: I’m guessing we will see who is right or wrong on this issue after the fact. Let’s see if we see any notice? Either way, it was an opinion based on why I believe the sell off had nothing to do with a potential CR, and I have provided another possible reasoning. Doesn’t matter which side you look at it, possible CR or not, all our comments are just opinions and will always be of no factual element. No further reply required!

Second comment made by Shadders:
“specifically at deals we could never even comprehend is the biggest question mark?
deals we could never even comprehend? We are talking about Gus and Saxon not Jesus Christ!

REPLY: I find it very difficult to understand why you have replaced Mr. Mochamad Thamrin with Gus??????? No further reply required :)


Third comment made by Shadders:
“I’m confident it was a either a short term investor who has been waiting for an announcement whom was looking for a short term gain and didn’t have the patients due to the opportunity cost of making money elsewhere, or due to a shareholder personal circumstance requiring cash flow!

You have absolutely no factual basis for that. Even worse you then go on to use this rampant guess as the only basis for your next statement "Thus, IMO the selling off was not based on a potential CR" If it's your opinion fair enough you're entitled to it but what characteristics of the sale imply your scenario is more likely than a substantial holder?”

REPLY: This was a speculation assumption using my own opinion, and I never stated “factual basis” anywhere anytime, these were pure speculation comments. My reasoning on why I believe the selling off was in the answer above, and that’s what my basis was in providing my opinion: “opportunity cost of making money elsewhere”. No further reply requied!


Fourth Comment made by Shadders:
“ Lets say hypothetically if a CR announcement is released soon, don’t you think there would be an obvious Insider Trader Enquiry due to the significant amount of shares sold by either 1 or 2 shareholders today?

Seriously, how long have you been in the market? How many pumps or dumps do we see before a price sensitive announcement comes out? I'd guess there's at least one a day in the whole market. How many insider trading prosecutions do we see? Lucky to get a couple a year. If someone knew something it's hardly a disincentive.”

REPLY: It would’ve been better to comment as your “opinion, than working on “factual basis”, very hypocritical lol But how bout I provide you with a link which is based on factual info:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-16/insider-trading-cases-surge-says-asic/4014338
within article states: ”In a sign of a rise in illegal trading, ASIC says it is receiving around 200 alerts a day in relation to suspicious trading activity regarding the use of privileged information unavailable to the general market.”

So before you attempt to insinuate that I have no idea about the stock market, maybe you should relook at your answer “If someone knew something it's hardly a disincentive”, No further comment and reply required!


Fifth Comment made by Shadders:
“I’m sure that a shareholder’s speculation of a CR would not be accepted as a plausible explanation during an enquiry.

Wrong. In the absence of conclusive evidence (i.e. witness statement, phone or email records) that they had received inside info the court is obliged to accept that explanation. Our justice system does not require the accused to prove their innocence.”

REPLY: As per my reply above, please refer to the article provided which obtains factual information, rather than your opinions which are non-factual and your opinion only. I could go into a lot more detail, but I’m guessing most HC members would agree. No further reply required!


Sixth Comment made by Shadders:
“As mentioned in my earlier post a close source of mine has confirmed that Gus Simpson has arrived in Indonesia. IMO he is obviously here to finalise all of QPN outstanding matters, specifically finalising drilling dates.

"IMO"... Just so everyone's clear on that I'll repeat what you said... "In my opinion". Again you offer no reasoning or argument to suggest why your stated scenario is any more likely than any other. You simply state your opinion and carry on as though it's an assertion of fact.”

REPLY: Once again, you talk about “fact”, did I ever assert my comment with “fact” or with “my opinion”, seriously do a google search, and find out the difference in a personal opinion and fact.
In relations to finalising outstanding matters, I’m pretty confident many HC members would share my view that I was basing my comment on speculation and not fact. I also thought it would be better to be less repetitive, as I have provided my reasoning on a number of occasions on why I believe we are in the finalisation process even before Gus landed in Indonesia. No further reply required!

Seventh Comment made by Shadders:
“We should also note Gus Simpson has recently raised a total of $12.5M for PEN

The scenario's are hardly comparable. PEN is a very advanced project with a solid JORC resource with millions already spent on development and significant derisking. Ranau is effectively virgin ground with almost zero derisking. As much as we might like that patch of dirt Insto's aren't so easy to convince without hard evidence AND concrete derisking signed off by independant 3rd parties.”

REPLY: Your comment is laughable. I provided factual information on Gus’s most recent success in raising funds with PEN. How can you say “The scenario's are hardly comparable”. I’m confident most HC members would find this announcement and Gus’s success very positive towards QPN raising funds. I’m also confident that there are cashed up investors wanting to pounce on the opportunity to invest in QPN (based on research performed, neighbouring discoveries, and key players in region), once again I look forward to talking you after the “fact”. I’m still laughing, no comparison lol


Eigth Comment made by Shadders:
“IMO I am very confident that a CR will not be offered to general shareholders, but will be offered to institutions and/or significant existing shareholders which is backed by the above PEN announcement. So if this approach is adopted by QPN, does anyone expect a dilution in the SP? IMO a definite NO.

What a complete load of drivel! 1st you are suggesting that a CR to insto's only is better for shareholders than if they are offered participation? Have you read stock market 101? 2nd any CR that is not at a discount to current SP is an extreme rarity and in this macro environment probably near impossible (and in most cases I've seen they've actually been fraudulent). Think about it, you're offered a shareholding at current SP. You immediately know the company needs cash and is in a weakened position, are you going to say yes straight away? Of course not, you'll want a discount. You've got something they want, lots of companies have what you want. You've got the edge. It's quite simple to validate this argument, how many CR's happen at a discount, how many at even money and how many at a premium? Look around, the market will tell you how likely it is for a junior explorer.”

REPLY: Now you’re just making up your own questions and answering them to your liking. Please prove with a factual reply that I have ever indicated in any of my comments/opinions on record that I expect a CR to be offered at the current SP????

I have clearly said based on Gus’s most recent record of raising funds with PEN (which is FACT) a CR (obviously at a discounted SP, I have absolutely no idea how you could assume I was referring to the Current SP) will only be offered to either current significant Shareholders and / or Institutions. No further reply required :)

Ninth Comment made by Shadders:
“So if this approach is adopted by QPN, does anyone expect a dilution in the SP? IMO a definite NO.

3rd, on which planet can you have a cap raising (i.e. issue more shares) without dilution? The only way to come even close to this is by proportional rights issue and then you arguably avoid dilution by taking up your full rights. Still costs you money to maintain your shareholding though which is why I say arguably.

You can cover your ass by liberally sprinkling the phrase "IMO" (I counted 7) but at least try an substantiate those opinions you put forward with reasoned arguments that have basis in fact, not just a scenario you've selectively pulled out of the conjecture bucket.”

REPLY: I am confident most HC members would agree, Shadders has misinterpreted my previous mentioned comment to his own liking, and adopted his own non-factual assumptions. Please refer to my above reply comment for clarification based on factual information, than Shadders non-factual opinions/assumptions.

Obviously using Gus’s past record in raising funds (FACT) as per my previous reply comment details, do we expect a drop in the SP? IMO “NO”. No further reply required :)


The End

Tazman