Hi Dannyr70, my gut feeling is that I'd prefer that they have to...

Hi Dannyr70, my gut feeling is that I'd prefer that they have to come back to SHs and ask them for permission if they want to issue an extra 10% of shares. They can already issue 15% without asking so adding another 10% brings that up to 25% potential dilution. I understand that this is a common clause which gets passed in many small companies and that in most years the option to enact it is not used, it's just a bit of an ace up their sleeves if they ever had to use it to raise extra capital or whatever. Basically though, IMO if it were to be used I struggle to see how we, the existing SHs would benefit, there would be more shares on issue (i.e. dilution) and probably a lower SP as well. Having said all that maybe we just have to trust the BOD that they feel that they need this extra power, they have had it before and not used it so can be trusted to not use it willy-nilly. RA and crew are holders too so why shoot themselves in the foot for no gain?

My current feeling is to vote 'no' against this one (but vote yes to all the others) and if they need to issue more shares then they'll need to get approval first, 15% dilution a year already seems enough IMO ( I assume for use as options, issues to "sophisticated investors", instos and SPPs ) and as we are such a small bunch I reckon that for a good cause and with a valid business case explained to us we would give approval for an extra 10% if needed. Maybe a word from them would sway me if it was explained the need. Happy to hear others views on this, maybe I'm missing an important need for them to be able to quickly issue an extra 10% without getting approval. Cheers,