Timeframe for 2015, page-35

4seasons,

It makes for a pleasant change for a response that is mature, not personally vindictive and one that addresses the facts as they stand (as opposed to the histrionic insistence that the funding question does not exist).

And your point that "in certain circumstance's continued funding and support by the Capital Markets is a real plus in the bigger scheme of things (long term)" is a very mature and cogent one.

Of course - you and I and other minority shareholders just like us - are participants in Capital Markets, just like any investment institution is.

So why it shouldn't capital market funding take the form of being a fully renounceable entitlement offerings?

Why are you happy to be effectively cross-subsidising major investment institutions who benefit from selective discounted placements at your expense?

Put another way, why is it 10% of something or 50% of nothing?
Why don't you seek to get compensated for going from 50% to 10%?
Why do you do that for free?