questions, page-14

You are avoiding the point that I have raised to you in my previous post. And you failed/refused, to understand what you called it "My Essay".

I also told you that you don't know who paid that amount of 76.5 cents per share, yet you are asking me to tell you who was it that paid that amount of money per share.

Nice try...

You also trying to get around my explanation and question to you, by coming up with another question.

I've already said to you in an example that the dividends received, both as a return of capital and as fully franked dividends will have to be treated differently for taxation purposes in the case of a long term investor, and you come up with a convoluted answer that is totally irrelevant to our arguments/discussions.

As I've said before there are two types of investors in the sharemarket with totally different taxation rules applicable to them:

1) The one that is a short term and/or professional trader that, regardless of the situation, he/she is not liable to work within any of the Capital Gains tax guidelines, and

2) The long term investor where he/she is liable to the Capital Gains tax provision, while also he/she is allowed relief provision. But for him/her to claim any losses he/she would have to have capital gains to offset them.

On top of that you fail to understand that both the 28 cents fully franked dividends and the franking credits, will have to be incorporated in the tax return as an income, (I.e. 40 cents will be added to that taxpayer's income), and from there, the imputation credits will be credited as a tax offset against the tax payable. The only thing is, that for the investor that pays tax and where both the dividens and franking credits will push the taxable income over and above the threshold of the 30 cents credit that he is entitled to claim as an imputation credit, the recipient will have to pay more tax representing the difference between the 30 cents credit and the real tax applicable to that tax bracket.

Yet, as I have said before, any losses could be left in limbo until the investor will have some capital gains to offsets those losses. In a few words, the investor would be liable to pay tax on one side of the income, but he is not allowed to claim the capital gains tax loss concurrently.

Finally you also said:

"Anyone that is now carrying a capital loss on the balance (post div) will be able to utilise this against gains on the next trade. This is all pretty basic stuff."

With that part above, you are admitting that there could be someone out there that could be facing a loss. Something that you have previously denied. Especially when you wrote the following within your own post:

"So a total return of 50c. I know for a fact no one paid more than 76.5c pre-return. No one paid more than 26.5c post return. So tell me who isn't ahead?"

One minute you ask me to tell you "Who Isn't ahead", and the next you are saying that "Anyone that is now carrying a capital loss on the balance (post div) will be able to utilise this against gains on the next trade."
Some strong contradiction there IMO.

Anyway Oz-wolverine, the whole issue of EXS is apparently over and dusted, unless of course ASIC will step in and ask some very hard question to the Board. But, as far as I am concerned, I will do my best to remember the names of these Directors for future references, and try my hardest to stay well clear of them.

There are a few other companies that I applied that principle and it works very well for me.

One more thing now. And that is, that for an ordinary investor of this company it seems that you know a lot more than any other investors out there. Especially when "you know for a fact...MMHHH!!!