Directors buy for many reasons [even if they don't want to] but they sell for one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Baa_Baa
Conditional? Not my choice of word, but seeing as you raised it do you think VMob directors would wilfully breach participant disclosure rules? If so why?
I didn't say anything about a breach of rules or laws. As we know, insider trading laws do not currently apply to placements. I asked whether you would agree that the directors knew or ought to have known of the McDonalds contract when they signed onto the capital raising in January. Would you agree that they knew or ought to have known about the contract?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Baa_Baa
Scott doesn’t Blog robbo, that’s Kai’s job. If you asked him you’d understand why the content is what it is and who it’s targeted at. Nevertheless, amongst the marketing information you will have seen the nugget of VMob working with Microsoft and large chains in the hospitality industry, which is new information, perhaps foretelling of good news to come.
Yes, Scott does blog. As you can see, the author of the most recent post is Scott Bradley. Does that make Scott an overpaid blogger, or does that mean that a blogger is paid to write under Scott's name? If so, I wonder what else is written under Scott's name?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Baa_Baa
Clarification then, by “no-one”, I of course meant no retail investors. Actually, I don’t think the directors wanted to buy into that cap-raise robbo, more that they might have had to. Either way I wouldn’t know what the directors knew or did not know at the time, do you?
I am of the view that directors knew or ought to have known - that is the whole point of beind a director. Why do you think the directors didn't want to buy into that cap-raise? To pay their own fees?