Its all funny money really.I bought my first tranche @ $1.40,...

Its all funny money really.

I bought my first tranche @ $1.40, and my most recent @ $0.35 ... my average is 0.65c ... I calculate my dividend returns based on my average capital employed, not theirs... so they were actaully paying double the dividend or more until the recent dilution(s) ...

When the share was at $1.40, the dividend that year was about 20c ... [14%] ... when it then dropped to $1 [for me] dividend was about 8% ... and now at 0.65 c expecting 6c / year or so its creeping to 10% ... who knows what they will end up paying!

Yes for those who paid $4, their avg entry assuming both dilutions would have been (4+0.60)/2 = $2.30, followed by (2.3+0.35)/2 = $1.32 odd. The 6c on $1.32 represents about 4.5% yield .. which is not so different to the 20c/$4 that they used to get !!! Hence, funny money in my view.. and how much worse off are they really?

Granted, if they didnt dilute, its terrible.

Investors have been tapped for more money because the banks have changed how they do their jobs - not because of any fundamental changes in property operating KPIs. The balance sheet strategy of asking investors to be the company's bank will allow GPT to manage its assets for better long term returns - and I believe that certainty and confidence is the only thing that has been depressing the share price. GPT has now done its bit - the rest is time - and the company is no longer time constrained by external [i.e. banks!] forces.

Should be a good long term outcome.