Jump to content



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 22k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • forrestgump


  • rog


  • dr_dazmo


  • skorpian


Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images





I'm so glad that the IE report as the support of the purchaser. That's all I was waiting for really; now I know it must be accurate and as a result I will vote in favour of the Scheme.


In Australia Independent Expert Reports are a tragic joke, commissioned by a company's board of directors, paid for by the same board of directors (with shareholders hard cold cash) thus what IE in existence would side with the company's shareholders? If they did so I would imagine said IE would not be likely to see many more commissions to prepare another report.


A company's board of directors unanimously approve a takeover and strongly recommend same to all shareholders. On what basis? Just some preliminary work strongly swayed by the wishes of the board to cash in their chips. The board itself then selects a "suitable" IE whose job is essentialy to validate the director's ideas on price, a price most likely agreed to over a cup of tea 4 months previously.


The IE has a huge ($150,000 odd) conflict of interest however that aspect never seems to see the light of day here in media articles, etc. So what's the IE to do? Out comes a draft report, change a few paras here and there and then set about massaging the figures and assumptions to fit the price the board has already agreed.


Money for jam.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Elleburra,

I am deeply amused at the lack of psychological intellect being applied by both the Board and the independent expert. LetÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s assume both actually believe what they are now saying. You can tell if what they are saying is based on good pragmatic analysis or innate (unknowing) psychological desire to be correct, by the quality of their argument and the level of consistency or hypocrisy in that argument.


The males producing these things (males are more prone to this) are driven by the need to be seen to be correct rather than finding the truth. They have unfortunately taken a prominent position without knowing what their shareholders really wanted and now must defend it for self esteem sake (as well as taking the money and running). Their view of their importance and how they know better than us and the need to protect that superiority informs their arguments much more than logic (that is a real shock given they are scientists). God help you if you show a powerful man to be a fool in front of his peers. And thus the board is now only working on saving face rather than listening to their shareholders.


The ancient Greeks understood the difference between a pragmatic search for the truth and people arguing to make sure that what they say appears to be correct. The former technique is called Logic and the latter is Sophistry. I listened carefully to the board room radio session and found many of the arguments to be a positional sophistry rather than logic, especially when the arguments are exactly diametrically opposed to what I heard out of his mouth in person not even a year ago.


When a sophist is grasping for arguments to make themselves look good or appear to support their position (what we call spin) they leave a trail behind that is easily seen. I would recommend very strongly that those who oppose this sale of the business stop playing the man, stop abusing the self misguided directors who are now grasping for arguments that support their self esteem. Look instead to dismantling their arguments through logic and exposure of hypocrisy and sophisms. Please be careful when you do however because when this falls over some of the Directors could even suffer from deep bouts of depression and health problems. When an important male is made to look too foolish, the loss of face can have very deep personal consequences.


Already many good contributors to this thread have started to show the glaring gaps in the Directors arguments by comparing what has been said previously to what is being said now. The Directors are worse than Tony Abbot is in opening their mouths and directly negating some very strong opinions they previously held and with no legitimate excuse for the change. They either misguided the shareholders then or are doing so now. Already the Independent Expert has shown deep hypocrisy by denigrating DCA and then using it to argue their case. They are already using non sequiturs and are falling foul of trying to make themselves look good by arguing the opposition are ignorant fools. The logic is that you also will be a fool if you believe the opposition rather than the independent expert (almost a religious argument rather than logic, especially when you look at the experience of some of the CSAG). The directors are saying that they have paid an expert a lot of money to tell them what they wanted to hear so you will be a fool not to believe them as well.


IÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢m sure Forest and the others are already working hard at dismantling the sophisms put into that booklet (there is also some logic there) and Rog is having fun highlighting the hypocrisy coming out of the mouths of the company (e.g. last year ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“I would never sellÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ, this year ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“itÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s a great ideaÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ without any real logical explanation for the change).


Keep up the good work in exposing the failure of the Directors actually listening to what we want as the owners of this company and their desperate tap dancing to try and save face.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

TUBERCULOSIS testing company Cellestis has dismissed a group of shareholders opposed to a $341 million takeover bid as beating up ''dreams, suppositions and wild fantasies''.


I have been misled. Plain and simple.


Over the years I have read on this site and others reports and notes from those that have attended the AGMs and Investor briefings.

These notes of what has been said by the management of CST ( I was going to say "our" management but I hold no trust for our Board any longer as it is clear I cannot believe what they say ) these notes were not written by hysterical school children at a pop concert but a factual representation of what was said. So now after us believing the company of Cellestis we are now a mob of "dreamers, suppossers and fantasisers"


What we have now is not a hostile takeover by Qiagen but a hostile takeover by the shareholders / part owners of a business that in their view have been misled by the managers of our business.


Rule No 1 ) Do not do business with anyone you do not trust.

Rule No 2 ) Do not do anything with anyone you do not trust.


The previous CST is finished, what the new one will hold, or the SP goes up or down is unknown, but one thing for sure, we will not have to put up with those that we can no longer trust.









Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have consulted my feelings a bit more over the past few days, especially after reading yesterdays release to the ASX by CST.


My feelings centre on the basic fact of shareholding.


As a small investor I do my research diligently and regularly. I know I am in shark infested waters, but I try to use a cage.

My research is based on CST reports and occasional announcements. Also Rog's blog , Martin's precise postings on another forum, Gavin's newsletter and QFT analysis Word document, and of of course Forest's various documents made available on the internet. and the occasional broker report or tipsheet.




I am retired. I have CST in my DIY. I know I should only live in the present moment, but I do keep a weather eye on the future. And CST has featured in that future.


Now I am told that I am a dreamer for basically taking the 2RRs at their word. This forum has quoted verbatim from the mouths of the 2RRs as they painted a reasonably rosy future for QFT in the face of the TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM of the medical profession in maintaining TST as the default diagnostic. We were told that it is a David V Goliath battle and that David does sometimes win. And if he wins the sky is the limit. I plead guilty to dreaming, but I ask for a lenient sentence, because I had good reason to dream according to the 2RRs.


If I have

''dreams, suppositions and wild fantasies''
, the 2RRs gave them to me.


I have always had reservations about the ethics and morality of the sharemarket but when I see the 'goings on ' in Public Super funds I felt I had no choice but create my own SMSF


As someone said , in a race always back SELF INTEREST, because you for sure it is trying.


I thought my interest and the interest of the 2RRs was the same.


How wrong I was.


If the SP falls a lot when the SOA is defeated I and my family will suffer, but that is preferable to let CST management consummate their DIRTY DEED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi elleburra and Merrywise,


just in case you or anyone else reading my quote missed it, my original post came with an irony warning.


So, of course, I agree with your comments completely. As I said earlier, the view of the Board and its consultants is that as long as it is not unlawful who cares if it's wrongful.


Merrywise, you are spot on, in comparing the Board and its consultants with the Sophists of Ancient Greece. The Sophist entered argument as a combatant not as a genuine inquirer. This is now the position of the Board. It has gone beyond being merely partisan - for even the partisan is usually sensitive to the strength of an argument; and most people enter into an argument with some degree of partisanship but still with the aim of exiting the argument holding true belief or knowing the right course of action. But Sophists don't give a monkey's for that, they just simply want to win. And like those who put Socrates to death, they see the aim of rhetoric/argument/persuasion is not as a way to find the truth or the most just course of action, but first and foremost to enhance personal standing. In our case it is CSAG that is the Socratic gadfly, asking the inconvenient questions, and whom the Board would like out of the way in order to preserve their status.


Thankfully the AGM will be just around the corner after the mess of the Scheme has been dealt a mortal blow and then shareholders will have some alternative directors to vote for in order to get the company re-focused on sales and profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An "independent expert" cannot, by definition, be independent if he is being paid for his opinion ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“ just look at the "independent" valuations given by supposedly reputable ratings agencies in America to the massive quantities of worthless CDOs that subsequently helped precipitate the GFC.



I would have thought our directors to have been, in this instance, more expert than Deloittes, and until this backflip, (and I suspect, still, or why would they follow the company into Qiagen?) they were very positive about CST's prospects.



The discrepancies and contradictions are coming out now ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“ is that something ASIC might be interested in?



I have held CST since IPO and followed this forum all that time ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“ never been tempted to sell. It looks to me that just as the fruit is beginning to ripen the flying foxes have shown up.


Give me vested interest any day ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“ CSAG's interests are mine.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following the posts here with great interest. Most have been sophisticated, analytical and I believe, accurate. Even taking the negatives into account, it is hard to see the company's progress being derailed within 5 years.


My tinkering with Forrest's valuation spreadsheet produces a share price of $13 in 5 years, with an additional $2 in grossed up dividends. This using a 30% pa growth in revenue and 9.5m tests in 2016. Both quite achievable it would seem.


Why on earth would anyone want to sell for less than $7-8 at a minimum! In fact why sell at all!


Just my simplistic view of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...