Ann: Results of AGM, page-2

I note that all resolutions including the remuneration report where carried.

And I conclude either I or my fellow shareholders by weight of vote are occupying completely different worlds - I think my fellow shareholders- going by the way most of them voted - have more money than they have brains.

I do realise that those that comment here are not necessarily typical. I do realise that there is always the temptation to suck up and try to make special deals with directors in order to try to get better treatment. But I also bloody realise certain objective realities that have nothing to do with petty sleazy self serving (short interested) greed. The stock price over time reflects market valuation. Directors coming on in one period and dropping the share price over years are not objectively performing in such a way as to be on its face making a case for keeping themselves around.

I voted no to all resolutions except in the end for the last one - because on the amount of research I was willing to do into the last one it seemed like on balance it was wiser to have a meeting. Though I think anything to do with a partial takeover is likely to be done by some scoundrel looking to get more than their share by taking advantage of the lack of attention many shareholders pay to their holding. I do get that I am myself demonstrating a somewhat lack of attention.

I do not hold a large number of shares - I will not average down into sub standand (my opinion management) - but I feel Cynata management has wiped out an amount of value from my personal holdings that is about what I'd experience if a new car was run into by an uninsured incompetent driver.

But there may be good reasons - intellectual reasons I suppose - for voting to support managements (the boards) set of resolutions as opposed to self serving reasons of the type I see exemplified by the likes of bedger - I wonder what they (good reasons for supporting what look to me to be mostly harmful to shareholders own interests resolutions - resolutions that ended up being carried by around 80 percent of the voting) might be?

I think its going to be hard to persuade me my fellow shareholders aren't just stupid rich people (or aspiring rich people) looking after themselves by sacrificing sensible investment principles and practices for what look like mug punts - but I guess this is a forum. I could be wrong.

I expect that now the capacity to raise capital in the extra 10% will be used (which I will regard as abused (because it will appear as an expense for something not specified - like for more GvHD expenses in the future) again. I expect to see more share price deterioration.