Weekend reading and NO ADVICE. All IMHO If you read the history...

Weekend reading and NO ADVICE. All IMHO

If you read the history of the introduction of the changes to 7.1 back in 2012 you will know that the ASX changed the rules "to remain competitive" with other exchanges for listings and the subsequent CR's that would follow....

But why should such changes compel a BOD to act in this way?

There is a whole "industry" now feeding off these 7.1 rules changes....

I am astounded people are posting such things as "got to support the company" by partaking in the SPP.

Says who? your fairy godmother?

Shareholders should do one thing and one thing only if they want to maintain their rightful % stake in any listed company after an inequitable CR...

Do what is best for themselves at any particular time.

If that means buying on market so be it.

Forget any altruism.

Has that got any shareholder anywhere in the last decade?

Since when are HFT, brokers, bankers, indeed the big end of town "altruistic"?

If companies and their directors don't seem to understand that when a share is finally entitled to an "earning"/share" - that each share has the same net entitlement to that earnings (on the one hand), yet the entitlement seems to somehow be worth something different early on prior to earnings materialising (on the other), then why should shareholders simply "do what the company wants?"?

If directors cant seem to price the offer that gives an existing shareholder an advantage for all the risk they have taken over an outsider.... is that the fault of the shareholder? Did they organise the offer?

^ the real questions you should all be asking are general in nature and don't specifically relate to this stock but are as follows:

1/why does it appear directors of companies listed on the ASX don't seem to be street wise as to what really goes on?

2/ where has their education gone astray, or is it that they don't read widely enough or have so many shares "simply awarded to themselves" that they don't have enough real skin in the game to take notice?

3/do they understand simple maths? Do they even know what shareholder dilution actually is?

4/ as long as the company "survives", do they even care?

5/ why does it appear that the half baked measures built into 7.1 that are supposed to protect shareholders are so totally inadequate?

6/ why is it that the ASX doesn't seem to do anything about it?

7/ is it as simple explanation that the CR process is just so bloated and cumbersome now bogged down in legalease that directors and companies simply can't see the wood from the trees?

8/ why does the ASA, the ASX, the corporate regulator - indeed the Australian government - continue to do nothing about this blatant inequality of treatment amongst shareholders who hold exactly the same same shares within the exact same company?

Good luck to you all and all the best to AHZ.