Ann: Strategy Overview Postponed, page-19

So, then, what was the letter to shareholders of 26 June 2017 all about? Based on today's advice, the comments of 26 June were potentially misleading to the market, but to what end or manufactured purpose?

It is clear that they knew on the 26th that they would not be able to release today. By their own definition of imminent, there were previous announcement pointing to "within a few months", etc. But, if not that, then, if "by imminent", they were meaning within the next few weeks, then today's further announcement was not warranted. In other words, by their own sword, motion and direction, their own concept of "imminent" on 26/6/17, meant by /before 30/6/17, as today's delaying announcement evidenced.

So, to what end were the actions of last Monday intended except perhaps to cause or bring about an ill-informed market, or potential SP opportunities, from an insider perspective?

To put this into context, the comments of today (unattributed to anyone), and of last Monday (attributed to the CEO), overlap each other in terms of the knowledge held then, and now, so therefore, the two statements are mutually exclusive to each other.

Contrast, for example, the following comments:

* 30/6/17
"The final document has been delayed because of the heavy workload of the directors and senior management in recent weeks involved in encouraging negotiations with several potential new customers as a result of material changes in milk distribution occurring currently in Victoria as a result of pending plant closures by other processors".

* 26/6/17
The Directors are planning to release a foreshadowed Strategy Paper imminently and further
detail about the Group’s future will be provided in that document.

They have already breached their directors' duties by not disclosing in the H17 report, as a subsequent event, the imminent settlement of the Camperdown property acquisition (which subsequently settled in early March, within weeks of the H17 report being handed down). The original acquisition was material enough to be disclosed at the time of first announcement, but not at time of settlement.

Much the same as this applies also to the Lian He JV which supposedly was /is meant to anchor the Camperdown property acquisition, except that whilst settlement has occurred, no new shares (as was otherwise required) have issued. So, did the Vendor demand cash in substitution for the intended allotment of shares? Quite likely, yes.

It therefore seems that some of these farcical announcements have more to do with either propping up TAU's SP (although, that's a complete flat line), so therefore, more likely at trying to stop the
haemorrhaging that's ongoing in the TAU balance sheet. Having a TAU NTA now some 40-45% below the minimum stipulated levels (for fund manager purposes by ASIC) is really not a good outlook on anyone's account.

So, for starters, the artificial props to try and get the SP back up to the 23.5c 2nd tranche exercise price by end of today has failed abysmally meaning that this is the second failed trigger tranche on their part, something which the directors can only blame on themselves. Mind you, it wouldn't surprise at all that they now come out and try to get a new scheme in place for the current mark 2, which replaced Mark 1, which itself replaced the Inception Mark, except that they then try and put the strike prices at a much more reduced rate (for example, at 15c, or 20c, or perhaps even at 12c). Nothing would be surprising with this crew in control.

That said, the unattributed announcement of today smacks of sheer panic on their part, for whatever reasons may only be obvious to them. It is so very rare for unattributed ASX announcements to be issued. Mind you, I wonder what the ASX Market Surveillance Unit would have to say about the follwoing:
* the timing of the announcements of 26/6 and 30/6;
* the mutually exclusive content of both announcements;
* the subsequent SP spike which, at some stages was up 40% on the pre-26/6 announcement SP, and on an increased volume (close to 3x+ the recent near term, preceding daily averages);
* the many, many center point trades that were all occurring during the early part of the week; and
* now the retracement back to circa the 11.5c mark, although the center Point trades have been happening again this afternoon (at the midpoint pricing, etc).

Michael would not now be wanting a "please explain" to pop up from the ASX as the behaviour of the past week has been rather curious indeed, not the least of which also tracks back to the rather amateurish, junior school read out of the "new, improved, magnificent" website except that it leaves more questions raised than answers given.

Mind you, there's also commotion behind the scenes, as today's announcement also exhibits through lack of attribution. When, for example, was the last time that Adrian was even heard of, or from? It's bad enough that the Board is now down to 3, although it should be enjoyable seeing Michael coming up for re-election at the AGM later this year, right smack on following when the second REM resolution will be voted on and, in all likelihood, a second strike, struck.

Mind you, the very real reason for today's postponement announcement was all due to the fact that some 6 months after it was first adjourned, TAU has today announced its tourism assets de-merger and its proposed acquisition of Cashwerkz. Mind you, within today's NOM, there are performance options being issued /proposed to Michael Hackett, the issue of $260,000 in shares to Hackett, and so on. No wonder then that AHF was postponed. Chances are all time, effort and energy was being expended on trying to get TAU and its change in direction, de-merger and acquisition actions all finally lined up (and the director remunerated for), most probably also at AHF's expense or cost, either in terms of being stalled, distracted, or subsidising the costs involved. After all, there have been some huge cash outflows during the first 9 months going to the directors and /or their associated entities whilst ADMIN costs have been blown right off the cliff.

So, having a possible "please explain" pop up would not be something altogether welcoming at this time even though, by their conduct to date, it's probably well deserved.

One day, this Company will prosper and succeed in spite of TAU, Hackett and co, not because of their efforts. For example, to get back to 23.5c requires the SP to >double from here. To get to 30c, it needs to increase by 150% over base, and to 50c, by 330% over base. Indeed, even to get to 20c, it needs to increase by 70% over base (using the current SP of 11.7c).