I share everyone’s frustration re the wasted money on adviser...

I share everyone’s frustration re the wasted money on adviser fees.

But what’s fascinating me about all this is the smoke and mirrors. Here is what I’m seeing:

- AFR article on 13/2: IDX confirmed that merger discussions had been held between the parties. The same article reported that it had “emerged Integral chairman Helen Kurincic and chief executive Ian Kadish wrote to their Capitol counterparts in July last year, outlining the benefits and strategic rationale for the tie-up of the two companies”. If that’s true, it sounds like IDX kicked this off, but are now saying its not a good idea??!!

- CAJ refers to the “industrial logic” of the deal: which does make intuitive sense, right? Complementary footprint, scale brings the combined entity up into ASX300, so more funds etc are able to invest, which tends to support the SP, you only need one set of management, you can run better clinical programs etc, etc.

- In this ASX Release, AH comes right out and says: “We have been surprised and frankly greatly disappointed by the intransigence of the Integral Board which has refused to engage constructively with Capitol in order to discuss the merits of a deal.” Big call - he’s historically seemed quite careful about his words, so my money is on him not saying that unless it was true.

- What valid reason could the IDX Board have for refusing to “engage constructively”?

- The IDX SP went up drastically the day that the TO was announced. There’s been very little substance presented so far to support IDX’s statements that the offer doesn’t represent fair value for shareholders.

- There were a few real things in the changes IDX pushed to the original bidders statement, but so much of the rest of it looked like points scoring to me - racking up legal fees on both sides...

Based on the way things seem right now, I know which Board I’d like to send the bill to!