unassuming aurora takes home the gold , page-3

I'm stealing the opportunity to make the first post of 2011 and probably the last of 2010 - it's still 4.5 hours to 'bubbly time' here.

The ADI T/O is last year to you, nursery, and almost for me. We both got burned. I was in the top 20 at one time. But I view it as a failure of the system to disapply the voting power at the time that the bid was launched (from a platform of 34%) until the predator had acquired 50% of the shares not held at that time. I don't see it as a failure of the directors. Perhaps we shall never agree on that but it is history and there seems little point in mentioning it.

As to the criticism of the AUT Board in relation to the two, latest, capital raisings: I have put my views. Some agree, some, including you, do not.

Personally, I am looking at a 50% increase in the value of my shares since the beginning of this month (last month to you) and I did nothing to enhance their value. With respect, I don't think that you did either. So who did?

Well, there seems to be a correlation between market performance of the share and the actions taken by the Board so, with some trepidation, I would suggest that they, the Board, have enhanced the value of my holding. Clearly, the Board has had considerable assistance from the O&G market but, as they say, whoever the famous "they" are, you have to be in the right place doing the right thing to catch the wind.

This is a big company now raising huge amounts of money from professional fund managers on two continents. The directors have to play by the rules and expectations of the market that it is now tapping. If the market had turned against the share temporarily and the subscribers to the placings had moved temporarily into loss: that's just market risk. Had the Board persuaded them to subscribe at a fine discount and that had happened, the Board might find it difficult to approach them for more capital at a later date.

IMO the Board cannot be criticised.