Hi, Paul.

PE> FM> According to my records here, you have 249,000 LKO. (FWIW I had about
PE> 10

PE> I have 242000 under one shareholder number, giving me 24200 entitlement. An
PE> 7000 under another with 10000 entitlement!

At least my total agrees. The 10000 is because the entitlement is for a
minimum of $2,000. If they were going to be hard to get, that was going
to be a sneaky way to get more - just have 250 holdings of 1000 shares.
:-) Actually, I learned last week that, because of that, if all LKO
shareholders took it up they would have to issue ~15 million shares more
than the prospectus said (but there was an oversubscription clause
specifically to allow for that).

What did you take up?

PE> So what a pity, LKO is down not because of rearrangement.  So why is it dow
PE> (7.6 to 3.9 or something)?  Is it because they plugged a hole?  You
PE> mentioned a few things that LKO had in it's favour, are any of them going t
PE> pay off you think?  BFN.  Paul.

I think they fell for 2 reasons - firstly they went ex-entitlement, so
effectively from that date LKO only owns 1/3 of Gawler Gold instead of
100%, and secondly because there was an expectation that the entitlement
was going to offer a better deal for existing shareholders than it did
in the end. I thought it would.

Regards, fIM.

 * * Feeling Lucky ?! - Upgrade your Software!
@EOT:

---