For those still looking for historical proofs, I think most...

For those still looking for historical proofs, I think most people will be surprised if they have a look at page 19 of the supplement / tables of "Shares" magazine for September 2001. For what it's worth, which isn't much now, it states the PE for GTP was 1.2. Anyway, I'm looking forward to finding out the final numbers for June 30 2002, learning how the various land etc issues have been accounted for this time and seeing more consistent statistical reporting from the various services (which will be easier as Christmas approaches as final reports will be in and the industry is normally very stable then, unlike now).

Senis, you may not be aware of changing "leading" comments, but I am. I've read every TIM, YTL, FEA and GTP announcement for the last three years and a host of others for other forestry companies. On file are a stack of newspaper articles, Landline etc programs, audios and so forth. TIM is not alone in making claims to being a leader in one way or another.

I've recently quoted parts of email correspondence with TIM (without permission from them unfortunately) and made it clear when I did. As pointed out in the email and as quoted I was supportive of their efforts to stick up for the industry (the Van Eyk announcement was an interesting one to have made - gutsy in the circumstances of the Inquiry and VE's standing with the media at the time) and correct misinformation, but given this, wanted to know why their home page continued to display a market cap. of $300 million, when it was nowhere near that at the time (nor has it been since). As previously stated, that was ten months ago and the home page has not been changed. This was despite their comment to me about putting some stuff together and aiming to change it soon. Given their statements on more than one occasion about "watch out" if people said the wrong things about them, I was more than disappointed at the lack of effort to make this very simple change, at least for the sake of accuracy and impression , given the sensitivity the market players had to the industry. This is a minor relatively matter in the bigger scheme of things and so easy to check, so let's move on ... please.

Re. TIM's bagging and missing targets ... those who are in the industry and follow it closely could read between the lines of the announcements made between Easter and July of last year by the various companies. The share price collapse was triggered by an announcement from GTP which was written by a new starter. The media had a field day with it and the fall out for others soon followed. GTP chose to close their books off earlier than TIM that year. TIM had assured the market that it was on track. By the end of the reporting period (Van Eyk was on a roll for one thing), they said otherwise. All the tax effective forestry companies had been hit. What was being said in the Parliamentary Inquiry at the time is available in full by reading copies of Hansard. Testimony was received from a variety of forestry companies and managers, accountants, investment advisers (including Van Eyk), the ATO etc. It went on for months and many long nights were spent by me reading through most of it. You are welcome to check through it yourself if in doubt about what was being said and what was going on. Newspaper reports and analysis were often wide of the mark in spirit and substance eg. the AFR's "Death of a Sector" article.

Lack of response from Van Eyk was indeed a problem. I watched chat sessions etc after Business Sunday programs for instance and saw a non-TIM plantation manager (who was sticking up for TIM) asking for the opportunity to debate Van Eyk. Van Eyk refused and I can't recall a one on one they've done in public with an industry rep. (if anyone has something they can refer me to, I'd like to see it for my own education). ASIC wrote at least one letter which was not replied to as well. Appeals from the timber and olive growers for Van Eyk to visit their plantations have fallen on deaf ears.

Van Eyk were claiming at the time they were not being paid for what they were doing. They had been trying to sell a $25,000 report, based on many a prospectus they'd gather together each year (sent in by the various companies); summarised the material, commented on it and usually choose a select few investments to say were O.K. for those that pay (even the Business Sunday program wouldn't pay what was asked to read the report - Pascoe comment). They used to get a commission in the early to mid-90's for signing customers for products from at least GTP and TIM, but didn't sell many as I understand it. They've been remarkably quiet this year.

APL is due to relist soon (but where have we heard that before? Just wish they'd hurry up.) and there is at least one forestry related IPO which was pencilled in for July.

I for one am not able to prove everything and show everything of interest (to what must be only a handful on this board by now who are even reading these posts), which is why I encourage people to check particuarly with the companies involved if there is anything doubtful from anyone. My sources come from various newspapers, Hansard, phone calls, emails, www.google.com, several bulletin boards, T.V., radio, the ASX, several online broking services, magazines such as "Shares" and literature posted from companies. At least half of everything I've got is still available online. The National Library is supposed to have copies of every book etc written by Australians and one can get photocopies from them of newspapers which go back decades. In a way it was pointless pointing out the PE 1.2 figure from "Shares" magazine from September last year, because I've got a copy and most other readers probably don't, but what can I do when, for instance, zwu says claims for PE's etc were just rumours?