It is still a puzzle over why this cap raising was done in...

It is still a puzzle over why this cap raising was done in direct opposition to the categorical promise of the chairman in Feb 2011 that there would not be such an issue. No justification whatever has been given. This will have to be forthcoming in the meetings next week.

Some of the possible scenarios:

a) To give NSP a larger equity in Singapharm. The initial proposal would have given NSP a 38% stake only rising to 51%. The SPP of last Dec/ Jan was intended to increase this fraction. New figures have not been given possibly because ideas and time scales are still adjustable.

b) Given NSP will now make another significant loss at 30 June this year the cash generated is needed as a prop up. It is noted that this cap raising is done at a time when the news is bad. Normally one would arrange to do this in a time sequence of good news.

c) Management wants to reward particular shareholders. By trashing the share price by 50% to 10c over a few days management causes small shareholders to lose confidence, who are then unlikely to participate in the SPO so that the underwriters pickup a very large wad of cheap shares. The people who would stand to gain would be the four directors and perhaps three or four major shareholders.

The issue of 1 for 2 bonus options would multiply this effect. But note that the wording of the 22 June statement indicates that the bonus issue is "for ALL shares held on 12 Sept 2011" and not just to those who buy into this SPO. This looks somewhat like a please-don't-cry lolly handed out to those who have rather worthless 35c NSPOs received in March.

How should we view the gels distribution contract with Thermo Fisher? At the Feb meeting it was stated that NSP were going to focus on increasing direct sales to customers which would result in a considerable increase in profit margin.

There is no shortage of unknowns here at present.

I?m glad there are at least three readers here, Kosenar.

Juke