RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:UPWatchmen wrote: A rights issue assumes that the concept of protecting current shareholders was a factor in the equation. Anyone believe that? Not me. I'm more likely to believe that the attitude was "F them, if they want to sell into a rapidly declining valuation than they have that opportunity". In the end current shareholders will have contributed to the raise, albeit at diluted rate. I have no problem with those that had the stones to do so, and they deserve their warrant in the process. I can't wait to see if and what the insider haul was here on this sell off financing. One hand in the cookie jar and sitting on the other during the downswing could get an OSC eyebrow raised.
Yes, to protect the long shareholders' value is the common sense and the most important thing the pimp (prostitute) management should have learned 5 years ago, but the idiot management (prostitute party members ) are so addicted to dirty cheap PP and never care about long shareholders' value. The only hope is the science side now, but the long shareholders should bear in mind the idiot style management really doesn't match this brilliant technology, how to curb them from screwing all the long suffered shareholders again even when the great data comes from Phase 2 is most important.