Imagine any of you are running the Zimbabwean pension fund. Why...

Imagine any of you are running the Zimbabwean pension fund. Why as a manager would you pay the company 13c/sh right now, or in the next month or 2, when you can buy them on market for 8c and have the same level of commitment for a cheaper price??

As the manager of that fund, isn't it better to wait out the period until the 'shortfall' lapses, then negotiate a better deal for yourself?? These managers will be fully aware that the company is desperate for funds we have to spend to maintain our holdings of the licenses.

Likewise for any other company involved in a farm-in or any other type involvement. They don't know if someone else might get equity or a deal from the company before them, but can clearly observe that Invictus has not done any deals with other companies so far and are well under water in regards the cap raise, so know there is no rush for them to be involved. This game of investment is a myriad of different moving parts, one action effects other aspects in a dynamic very complex way.

I only looked at Scott's prior take-up of cap raises while listening to the interview yesterday afternoon. Unlike other directors he hadn't taken up shares in any of the cap raises, but certainly has his hand out for options, bonuses and performance rights. That is what's visible to institutions and anyone else that bother to look through past announcements.
Why would anyone expect the institutions that can see this to hold for a longer time frame than a short profit period?? Why would any other company of super fund or whatever be bothered to take up anything unless they can get a decent discount to their benefit, and detriment of existing shareholders, especially when they can see the directors NOT supporting the company with their own money??

Scott's remuneration according to last years annual report is $384,000 plus performance shares of $288K in value, all from shareholders that have taken up the capital raises along the way.

The one time when there is a rights issue, so directors commitment to the company can be clearly seen by all, they all squibed..

As I've previously stated, if the directors only take up their entitlements after knowing of 'others' putting in the cash, that is an unfair advantage over existing shareholders. If they were going to put anything in they should do it on the same timeline as other shareholders, not wait to see results of retail offer and shortfall offer.

From my perspective, the story Scott told ONP, combined with yesterday's interview about knowing the retail offer would fail, is a lack of savvy about the perceptions given to and seen in the market.

It seems to me many here are missing the perceptions of the market, looking at the actions of directors that know a lot more about what's in the ground than everybody else, deciding to NOT take up ANY of their rights, at the appropriate time. That goes for whoever we are discussing placements with. They can see the same thing. How the directors could not understand this as a negative has me bemused to say the least.

If the results really were as fantastic as is being made out, then if I was a director of the company I would be moving hell and highwater to buy as many more shares as possible at the one time when I could legally load up, being a rights issue.

So the perception I'm getting from all this, is that what we have so far is not so great, hence why the company is not revealing any details like other companies do, and hopefully the Lower Angwa deeper down has plenty of gas, but is still unknown...