simon ehrenfeld delusional, page-34

See today's announcement answering some of Mr. Bretherton's more outrageous claims.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20081110/pdf/31dhfshgmwk531.pdf

With respect to answering to the shareholders, there is no problem. But of course, this isn't about answering to shareholders, and Mr. Bretherton's proposal would actually insulate Mr. Ehrenfeld from shareholders...

The share price has been in decline in parallel with the share prices of all of EFTel's industry peers, and EFTel's has declined less than most. I suppose that in the light of this fact you'll be voting to keep Mr. Ehrenfeld on the board so as not to lose his evident value to you as a shareholder?

You can see how the EFT share price parallels that of its peers by reviewing this graph which compares the EFT price to the telecommunications sector index:
http://hfgapps.hubb.com/asxtools/Charts.aspx?asxCode=eft&compare=comp_index&indicies=XTJ&chartType=3&pma1=0&pma2=0&volumeInd=2&vma=0&TimeFrame=M2

The Deloittes comment is nothing more than recognition that the company is not generously capitalised. Auditors, who have an aversion to ending up like Arthur Andersons, are very cautious and cover themselves against every eventuality. EFTel manages cash very carefully to extract maximum value from limited capital. (The shareholders who complain loudest are always the least willing to contribute additional capital, of course.) This approach entails greater risk than would be entailed by not investing in new networks to improve products and lower COGS, for example (i.e. the new BroadbandNext network). The Deloittes comment (NOT a qualification, a comment) recognises this risk. That's all. Every accountant and every competent businessman knows this.

The level of risk facing the company is not "high." Risk is a continuum, and the risk faced by EFTel is higher than that faced by companies with greater capital resources. That's what the Deloittes comment says.