tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686764185628666543.post295224323830170810..comments2023-10-10T03:26:30.831+13:00Comments on Share Investor: Freightway's Capital Raising more of the same crap for small shareholdersShare Investorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02150520236094812434noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686764185628666543.post-26722648351677132682009-06-06T23:52:03.231+12:002009-06-06T23:52:03.231+12:00Well, Kelvin the piece was partly inspired by you....Well, Kelvin the piece was partly inspired by you.<br /><br />In reference to your point about the max amount for the SPP. I think the company is ltd by Securities Commission laws - a 1978 one I believe. I think the answer to fairness then lies in law rather than idiot management.<br /><br />Having said that the rights issue would have been the way to go.Share Investorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02150520236094812434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3686764185628666543.post-37291214648037738612009-06-04T14:12:16.920+12:002009-06-04T14:12:16.920+12:00Excellent post! I completely agree with your focu...Excellent post! I completely agree with your focus on fair capital raising by ensuring equality amoung share-holders. I really don't understand why Freightways didn't use a renouncable rights issue since they are not a company in trouble and there was obviously a significant amount of investor support for them. Also, with their current high debt to equity ratio and their desire to continue to grow via acquisitions, I don't understand why they wouldn't allot a greater maximum amount for the SPP; it is not as if they couldn't do with additional equity on their balance sheet. Let me know if you hear of any further explanation from the Freightways management.Kelvin Hartnallhttp://www.hartnall.comnoreply@blogger.com