You and I (and I suspect everyone else who follows the forum -...

You and I (and I suspect everyone else who follows the forum - except for the 3 or 4 rusted on believers), know that this wont happen - we're wasting our breath - and Mr. "Incorrect" and has been called out left with the stunning defense of: "I am not obliged to"

No doubt we will be told we are wrong and we are misleading the forum and then the same hand grenade will be thrown into the ring about me; "you're obsessed with me" or "...you hate me". As I have tried to explain - this is not personal (I don't know the guy) - it is about calling out or challenging unsubstantiated hype. I think we both know, who a principal perpetrator of that is - and it ain't you or me.

Lets look at the claim about "institutional" involvement in MSM;

1. The claim is not supported by any list I have viewed (right up to about 2 weeks ago).
2. Almost all institutions cannot or will not buy 'penny-dreadfuls' (or stocks with a market cap of only a few million)
3. Almost all institutions won't buy a few thousand dollars worth of stock - there is too much management time and risk for too little quantum of dollar upside.
4. All shareholders have to make a declaration (including institutions) when they reach 5% and continuously declare every transaction from there.
5. There has been no such declaration made by any institution.
6. On the current market numbers, 5% equates to circa 25 million shares or $250,000 worth of investment - where are those holders?
7. So either they don't exist or they have an almost meaningless sub 5% holding and if that's all they hold what's the big woop?
8. If there is supposedly several such institutions (as clearly implied by the post) then the argument just becomes absurd and unbelievable and quite simply doesn't add up mathematically. That is additional to the top 20 itself not supporting the claim made.

So it can be safely assumed that you wont get the poster to post evidence of his claim - not because of the lame excuse "he is not obliged to" - but because the evidence doesn't exist and because the unsubstantiated hype will get exposed and the facts revealed. Cannot wait to see the next excuse and torrent of abuse.

On another matter, has anyone a view on how MSM was able to undertake a placement of shares to the Directors out of the recent issue shortfall?

The 3 Directors were the majority of the "eligible shareholders" who committed in the Prospectus to subscribe for around $280k of shares in the Entitlement Issue. Those same Directors, in turn, defaulted on that commitment - only subscribing for approx. 50% of what they had committed to.

The Company then advised that they had reached "settlement" over the defaulting amount with the defaulting "eligible shareholders" - (the substantial majority who were the 3 Directors - although that, was never disclosed - they were just there termed "eligible shareholders”). The "settlement" agreement was that the defaulting "eligible shareholders" would take the defaulting amount in a post issue placement of shares from the shortfall.

To that extent on the 5^th July 2018, MSM announced”

“The Company has also issued 35,051 fully paid ordinary shares (Shares) to contractors following the completion of vesting conditions pursuant to the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan and 3,176,037 fully paid ordinary shares and 794,010 listed $0.10 options expiring 7 November 2019 (Entitlement Securities) to eligible shareholders to settle the balance of their shortfall commitment of $136,570

Again, the 3 Directors are simply referred to as "eligible shareholders" and not properly or transparently referred to as "the Directors"
* [How do I know this - its all revealed in the 3B released by MSM pursuant to the Shortfall announcement made by the Company following the closure of the Entitlement Issue - it becomes crystal clear because no other shareholders took up their entitlement]

So the question, or my point of confusion, here is:

How could the Directors (one who is also Company Secretary) take a placement of shares (whether that be by subscription of shortfall shares or otherwise) without specific shareholder approval?

To my knowledge - there has been no such shareholder approval (I wait to be corrected)

The Directors were entitled to subscribe for their full entitlement in the issue (something they fell well short of doing) - but they are not entitled (as far as my understanding of the ASX Listing Rules go) to take up any shortfall shares from the issue or a placement of any other description - be that by way of settlement or any other means or purpose. Placements of, or an issue of shares to, Directors requires specific shareholder's approval. Again, I may be wrong - but where is that shareholder approval - the overall shareholder approvals they got do not mention Directors and simply doesn't (IMO) get them there. They cannot claim exemption as an "Underwriter" because they weren't underwriters and that position was never disclosed.

So - just asking anyone to shed some light on it and show me where I'm wrong - what point I have missed - outline the approval given - or explain how it was done?