abobo, thank you for saying no one wanted shareholders to be...

abobo, thank you for saying no one wanted shareholders to be treated badly. It is a close as one can expect to an apology. I just ask that you treat shareholders with more respect in your comments from now on.

There are two groups of shareholders; the traders, who do not care if they even know the name or activity of the company they are speculating in, and the investors, who have supported the company for its technology and benefits to the country, many of them from well before it listed.

One of the issues Chemeq did win in the Appeal was that any and all interest is counted as revenue; it did not have to pass the test of 'achieved', the novel distinction made by Templeman J. That is the point which if upheld would have created a huge dilemma for the accounting world.

Just because you call Stark a death-spiral fund, does that put them off-limits to criticism? Much as labeling someone a criminal and then not criticising anything he does. You have all but applauded everything Stark has done.

But moving to the present, and before you can muddy the water on this one, do you similarly classify IFCA a death-spiral fund and therefore beyond reproach, or - and the signs are good, having branded them a sham and mythical - that you consider them to be a genuine financier with consideration for shareholders and the company's objectives?