Like I said the other day, it is particularly in non-holders interests for this to be a "dud" or a "zero" and caught out by ASIC/ASX, as it demonstrates vigilance on the market, detracts con-acts and inherently reduces risk of holding/buying a lemon elsewhere in the market.
Therefore there is nothing many non-holders would wish more for BIG than for it to be found to be corrupt and removed from quotation. You can see it in some posts. The glee, almost, in speculating of this falling 95%+ upon relisting, if ever.
And as I've said, the argument for this does not quite stack up. Whilst it is quite easy to put up a bearish argument against BIG (the chequered past of a manager, the connections with a diseased accountant etc), there is not an ounce of an all encompassing robust argument that busts BIG. There are some glaring un-answered gaps in the argument against BIG, particularly in relation to movements in equity, cashflows over the past 18 months, the recurring membership of clients from 2015/16 etc.
I am yet to see anyone resolutely dispute some hard truths around the business and financing model. A lot of jabs at the structure, but nothing that comes across as more than a disgruntlement, rather than an emphatic rebuttal. Even the much applauded Shapiro cannot dispute the recurring clients coming back in hoards, and I think this is one of the stronger arguments that BIG can lean on. If the model was broken, or the financing model was unsustainable, why did clients renew memberships and come back for more in 2017? Why would multiple clients claim that BIG has driven a 20%+ surge in their sales? To say this is a con is not just disputing BIG, but also disputing every client that has come back for more of the product since they joined up.
Snippet below of slide 7 of the Oct 31st 2017 presentation
BIG Price at posting:
$2.22 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held