Ann: Conventional Portfolio Update, page-37

How many other people on this board agree with spinefx and or mikemike ??That more capital raises versus no more capital raises are the better thing ??

Meso....to have a context-less debate around further capital raises versus no further capital raises is facile, at best.  CR is a means to an end, and not the only means to some of the possible ends.  The 'best' means for the purpose will, or at least should, be selected at the appropriate time.  Surely the more relevant 'debate' for investors, be they ST, MT or LT is the 'ends' in question.  To my read, the BoD has progressively grown the stable of ends within this (now) portfolio investment called 88E.  They have done this by the judicious use of CR generated funds. While fate has dealt some side-steps, roadblocks or temporary retreats, we are currently presented with a range of ends that are not mutually exclusive and possible exit valuations far in excess of what I thought remotely possible three years ago.  I need to run my abacus on the numbers to see whether the theoretical value increase has offset the share base dilution in that period, and hence whether the CR's to date have been ultimately accretive or not. Gut instinct says it is probably line-ball which is more than I expected. This growing portfolio has also been matured to a stage where some viable non-CR funding options are now potentially available, but it is futile to dismiss CR as a back pocket option in certain scenario's.  Indeed, it may be prudent for the company to utilise farming generated funds to further develop the more mature (less risky) parts of the portfolio and use CR generated funds to further the less mature (more risky) projects.  I would argue that having options is a good thing and ruling out an option without taking in the context is pointless.

To be frank, I want funding to meet two criteria....a) be sufficient to execute the next stage of the company agenda; and b) be the least dilutive (or even most accretive) of the options available. If that is CR, then I would have to be a fool to rail against it.   Especially as I know that the CR option means there is no good industry deal (for that part of the project) on the table, at that point in time....and any unseemly haste to avoid a CR means accepting a bad deal or closing up shop.  Neither would be great for my investment....I would think.

Clearly there are other benefits to farming on good terms as opposed to a CR...and that is the implicit industry validation of potential and of the mooted risk/reward.

The name of the game is to gradually unlock value (giving shareholders opportunities to progressively realise that if so desired) as we move towards exiting each project at many multiples of what we acquired them for and invested in them. That investment journey is not over and all options should remain on the table.

IMO.