This is what you call great analysis, page-83

I am an accountant and I agree . I hold the stock so have no wish to downramp . The initial advance from finstro should have gone to a liability account and then when accepted by the customer to proceed moved from the liability account to unearned revenue . The second tranche of payment , the 41 % paid would go straight to bank and unearned revenue .

The whole thing has been terrible disclosure bordering on misleading . It's not a ponzi scheme but the accounting and auditing and disclosures have not been in accordance with accounting standards . Their release made it clear it goes straight to deferred revenue and the agrrement is called a sponsorship agreement . Both are grossly misleading and asic will take action I am sure . There is possibly a very strong legal suit against their auditors for people who end up suffering loss here .

The 24% margin I found concerning and almost bizarre . There is plenty of cheaper ways to do this ie a proper capital raising and using a simple bank debtor finance facility and extending the customer terms on their initial purchase , far cheaper than giving some middleman 24 % of the margin , it is so stupid and the disclosures so poor around this one can only arrive at some poor conclusions around the what exactly is the intent here ?

For mine the only way to recover this is a change out of some senior management and the auditors and company secretary and cfo have to go .