I just dont think you've mounted a sufficient argument. My...

I just dont think you've mounted a sufficient argument.

My comments became sarcastic because there is plenty of contra evidence for your position on consolidation (certainly as much as the reinforcing position) and yet you plough on, dropping assumptions on post consolidation values, implying BOD conflict of interest, demanding guarantees on share performance etc.

I also dont like people using single examples to make absolute cases when plainly the situation is less black and white and its clear that consolidations work sometimes and they dont work other times. Usually, that means there are other considerations beyond the simple action of consolidating itself at play that have to be considered. If you had reasoned as to why in particular WBT will fall on consolidation rather than rise, that would be a more valid argument. Why does BID go up on consolidation and why wouldnt WBT do the same? What makes if different and more likely to fall?

For mine, if you look back on my posting history I've taken for instance a pretty similar and strident opposition like you against several motions. Latest was the CYP loans from the company to fund the two directors exercising their options. This was blatent pocket lining at the expense of share holders.

A consolidation isnt that, particularly when the company is in the position its in and actively courting partners. There is plenty of evidence of successful consolidations, plenty not. Suffice to say that a toilet stock will keep heading into the toilet no matter what price the shareprice gets changed to. A good stock that plays globally and executes is likely to go up at some point.
Consolidation is a genuine business tactic with reasoned arguments around doing it.

I am not objecting to your right to campaign against this motion. Your perogative. You just havent convinced me at all yet. Tell me what characteristics particularly mean WBT will go down on consolidation rather than up.