Hi PPUPThe extra 100,000 I presume is to allow you to take up...

Hi PPUP

The extra 100,000 I presume is to allow you to take up other people's entitlements that they have let lapse (to avoid the underwriters having to do it).

What annoys me about this is that they say the purpose of the funds is to retire debt (ok) and to perhaps pursue acquisitions (definitely not okay). The capital raising seems entirely in Austock's interest (it will boost management fees and a nice juicy underwriting fee) but not in unitholders interests. We pay an extra 30 per cent to get NTA from $1.38 to $1.15, Risks may have reduced a bit, but potential upside has been massively reduced.

At present the Board is composed entirely of Austock representatives (the two independents are on the Austock board) and I do not see how they can possibly claim to have unitholders best interests at heart. (Was there any competition for Austock getting the underwriting role??)

Personally I think it is time for a true independent director or two and, even better, internalising management. As far as I can see from the constitution, a simple shareholder vote could get rid of Austock as manager.