SeaDragon

[Dentie]

agree - off market transfer to other enthusiastic directors.

I agree an off market transfer would be nice, but just because you are a Director, doesn't necessarily mean you can put your hands on a quick $100k. Other shareholders might be interested though ....Comvita?

[ari]

[QUOTE=Baa_Baa;604851]http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/seadrag...0Last%2520Call


I see "The Moose" made a comment to in the NBR article!

[Apathy]

I agree an off market transfer would be nice, but just because you are a Director, doesn't necessarily mean you can put your hands on a quick $100k. Other shareholders might be interested though ....Comvita?

Live by the sword die by the sword - made huge issue about the CEO CFO purchasing shares - stand alone press release (its off the NZX list now but was probably a price sensitive release) so they should accept reaction when selling. Worse it actually seemed like a begrudging explanation they didn't want to make - whereas it was in fact somewhat more serious; notification of a breach of takeovers act.

[Apathy]

and before anyone says moans - the breach was/is clearly in and of itself insignificant given billions of shares on offer. the method of notification was poor given ongoing disclosure requirements.

[bull....]

directors selling so early in a companies life is not a good look for what ever reason

[Balance]

Live by the sword die by the sword - made huge issue about the CEO CFO purchasing shares - stand alone press release (its off the NZX list now but was probably a price sensitive release) so they should accept reaction when selling. Worse it actually seemed like a begrudging explanation they didn't want to make - whereas it was in fact somewhat more serious; notification of a breach of takeovers act.

So let's assess what has happened here :

1. Directors invested in more shares than they are permitted to - so they have to sell. Kinda lovely to 'inappropriately' get more shares at 0.8c and then, having to sell them at 1.5c - 87.5% gain via breach of rules!

2. Merinova do an in-spieces distribution of its 11.4% shares in SEA in December. Now that its shareholding is below 5% and Mr Keeley is not a director anymore, he and his other Merinova shareholders can sell as many shares as they like without any further disclosure. Very convenient, isn't it?

1 and 2 above would be non-events but for the diligence of ST to hold directors and management to account for their actions.

[Balance]

Your comments are typically mischievous Balance.......... https://www.nzx.com/companies/SEA/announcements/273993

Stuart and Ross both made their continuing support for SeaDragon very clear publicly back in November - well, it appears to me that they did.

I'm sure Ross was referring to the number of shares he still holds when he mentioned about selling 7m. And he's right - it was a small number.

Now that's all been cleared up - I suppose you'll now be clamouring to buy back in?

So comments by directors now pass as bible truth to assess a company's prospects?

Check back to comments made by the directors of this company - inaccuracies, misjudgements, missed deadlines, PR spin etc etc - and their words are to be relied upon. YEAH RIGHT!

[Dentie]

So comments by directors now pass as bible truth to assess a company's prospects?

Check back to comments made by the directors of this company - inaccuracies, misjudgements, missed deadlines, PR spin etc etc - and their words are to be relied upon. YEAH RIGHT!

Checking back on comments (just on this thread) made by the self appointed "Sheriff of Sharetrader" and it seems he/she is all over the place - just like a changeable wind. Very inconsistent and seems to suggest an apparent ongoing intent of destructiveness.

Contrary to what has been mischievously intimated, the Director/s aren't selling because they have lost confidence in the business rather, they have sold because they either need the cash for other investments (is this a crime??) or, they have inadvertently breached the takeovers code (I suppose thanks must go here to eagle eyed shareholders!!) and are now being forced to sell. If those same shareholders can't be bothered to buy these in an off market transfer in order to take the pressure off the SP, then it's a case of putting up with whatever comes via the on market option.

Sometimes we get too clever.

[Balance]

Contrary to what has been mischievously intimated, the Director/s aren't selling because they have lost confidence in the business rather, they have sold because they either need the cash for other investments (is this a crime??) or, they have inadvertently breached the takeovers code (I suppose thanks must go here to eagle eyed shareholders!!) and are now being forced to sell. If those same shareholders can't be bothered to buy these in an off market transfer in order to take the pressure off the SP, then it's a case of putting up with whatever comes via the on market option.

Sometimes we get too clever.

As opposed to too stupid?

Oldest excuse in the book - cash for some other investment.

[Apathy]

Contrary to what has been mischievously intimated, the Director/s aren't selling because they have lost confidence in the business rather,

Totally agree - there is no loss of confidence here - it has been absent from the start of the fiasco along with any honesty.

Next round of releases/updates will make for interesting reading. They are no chance of hitting result guidance (which they reconfirmed they would) and if market isn't updated they will risk censure. Can't keep putting out fictitious press releases talking it up with out it catching up with you.