This situation is a great reminder that management teams of big...

This situation is a great reminder that management teams of big companies always have an incentive to look after the market cap and assets rather than the share price and shareholders.

Controlling more assets and a bigger market cap means bigger salaries, better CV, better incentives and more influence for them in the business world.

That's even before what could potentially be happening behind the scenes with the underwriters and that we are unlikely to ever know about.

The best antidote to these conflicting interests is when management hold a large stake themselves, aligning their financial gains with those of the shareholders.

This is not the case here.
It is painfully obvious how value-destructive this CR would be for anyone who can't afford his allocation in the right issue.
On the opposite side, I'm sure the underwriters are licking their lips right now. They're about to gain a substantial stake in a world class portfolio at 20% of NTA.

Not that I will ever be able to prove it, but there has to be some shady things going on here with the underwriters, shorting funds and management.

In my mind, there's no rational way to explain how it makes sense to dilute shareholders by 60-100% at the lowest share price since 1999 and sitting at less than 20% of NTA.

Oh well, nothing we can do but vote against the CR and if the resolution passes, start planning to make sure our allocation doesn't go to the underwriters.