Rainer,
The Mypoet post was rather good I agree and in general I accept your notion on assumptions which in the Military were oft put more crudely as "assumption is the mother and father of all F###k Ups' to misquote Sadam Hussein.
But we have a problem which goes beyond any of the reasons that were stated in SV's letter of explanation. That is, that the actions of the board of directors of the corporation set out to favour one class of investor more than an other. They did so by excluding retailers from the PO apart from the token gesture to some Canadians and specifically determined to limit the scope of the PO to Institutional investors.
MP sugests that it was entirely market forces that blindsided management but since I understand that he was one of the Canadians to benefit he would want us to touch our forelock and move on would he not.
Is it not the duty of the board to treat all classes of investor equally?
I think we need to examine our rights more carefully. Stifling the argument does not help disadvantaged retail investors.
Sula
