Some logic for you. Avid readers of HC would be well aware of...

Some logic for you.

Avid readers of HC would be well aware of the many, many comments over the past weeks, months and years that this company comes up short when providing information to shareholders. The continuous disclosure requirements of the ASX Listing Rules are possibly seen as a yardstick for reporting, as opposed to being a minimum requirement that is to be vastly exceeded by the company in the best interests of keeping shareholders fully informed. This minimlsist approach to information sharing is perhaps one of the biggest beefs of the average shareholder.

We are now witnessing attempts to remediate RGN1, and whilst the company has promised to provide updates, it is likely that there will be some opaqueness to the information provided. We will never really know the outcome until the fat lady sings, as any failure is likely to be shrouded with adjectives designed to maintain hope. Any success is likely to be shared hesitantly by a Management and Board recently warned by shareholders for leading them down the garden path.

But this is in our favour. There has been questions lately about the vast amount of resources (money and effort) put into RGN1. Clearly, Management actually think more highly of RGN1 than we do, as they are willing to "bet the company" on a well which has a relatively low pay-out (relative to sunk cost). So if we extend that logic, it could be that Managements' confidence is not misplaced but is actually the result of information they possess that points to success. Put another way, if we - as a collective - have 50% confidence that RGN1 will produce a positive outcome, Management seem to have an 80 to 90% confidence level, with the disparity between these two levels maybe being the result of information in their hands that are not in ours.

If the current share price is our collective valuation based on our collective knowledge, then maybe this explains the calmness of Management at the moment as they do indeed know more than we do and therefore have a higher level of confidence of remediation, success, and, subsequently, a re-rating of the share price?

May seem far fetched, but it's the only way I can rationalise their behaviour of late.