CB again you miss the point. So you're not happy that new holders got in so cheap, but blame that on existing Shareholders not taking up their entitlement. This analogy defies logic as there was a plethora of existing holders that were more than happy to help soak up the shortfall. But instead, a deal was obviously struck with some of the newcomers, including SS & TV who obviously struck this deal/arrangement with the broker to get a lion's share. My point in a previous post about holding more shares than some of the BoD was not to boast and I don't care whether you personally are interested or not; it was designed to highlight that there are many long-standing Shareholders like myself that have always had more skin in the game than some of the BoD and have supported OBJ for over a decade...which begs the question why the newcomers were offered priority cheap shortfall over those Shareholders who got OBJ to where it is today? The whole thing was carefully choreographed right down to the late documentation issued, prospectus void of shortfall details and pitiful shortfall shares afforded to existing interested long-standing holders.
Just because long-standing Shareholders highlight this one of many, many, many obvious shafting's, does not mean they are naysayers. You and SDJ are clearly still in contact and that makes sense given the Mint days; but I for one do not agree how any of this has gone down and I doubt Mr Little and others would either. And if I hear one more comment from you or sdj about needing to put my big boy pants on, I will need to puke. Take that to your 'terribly unfunny, teasing bank'
.
@objforever that data you have provided is not accurate, otherwise my SMSF would appear on that list.
(20min delay)