Yup HCuser...That'sa pretty good summary of my view.
Like I said, I'm not here to convince anybody For or Against, but from whatI've seen (SOC, HC threads, market releases, media) and what is(OM, ASIC, ASX, AFR all seem to think ISX stinks), and on balance ofprobabilities.....i think ISX has big problems. Hopefully for holders I amwrong.
In response to your counter views/explanations, I have some of my owncommentary;
1. Incentive Shares: "If ASX had proof, they would (a) beexplicit in their SOC and (b) use this as the basis of the ongoing suspension.They have not, because they can't prove it, in addition to it being contrary toformal audits. No proof, no crime - simple foundation principle."
ASX certainly appear to not be pursuing this issue but I don't believe you canjust assume that all is clear. Perhaps ASIC might have an interest here. Notout of the woods yet.
2. Behaviour:"Firstly and for thepurposes of being accurate, ASX is a market operator, who thinks via proxy theyare the Reguator."
Sure...it's a messed up system that isn't conducive to good governance. Whilstwe are nit picking....they are a market operator with regulatory obligationsdescribed by the Corporations Act 2001. One of those obligations includesoperating a transparent market. Write to your local MP about funding ASICbetter and continuing the separation that was started in the 2010 amendment ofthe Corporations Act, but didn't go far enough. Whole other threadcould be spent on this, but for purposes of this problem (i.e. the currentsuspension), they are at least 'as good' as a regulator and it wouldn'thurt JK for his shareholders sake, to treat them as if they were aregulator. Anybody who has the power to suspend, should be treated withrespect, whether they deserve it or not.
"This probably has something to do with (a) ASIC being deminished as aresult of budget cut backs and subsequent structural challenges and (b) themonopoly position ASX currently enjoys, which tends to elevate executives ownself worth and inability to balance reality with their outlook. Their techunderspend is a symptom of this attitude in a similar way banks executiveseventually diuted shareholders value because the more important focus was bonusand dividend payouts (a double whammy for executives holding positions)."
Couldn't agree more!!
Don't conflate this affirmation into agreeance with your view that ASXoverstepping its remit as market operator and suspending ISX.
"We are aware of a conversation between ASX and JK (yet to be provedin a legal sense), where ASX was explicit about ISX never trading on theexchange again. If this is true, then this would explain JKs beligerentbehaviour (backed into a corner with no other way out)."
I think you put it best when you say..... "No proof, no crime -simple foundation principle."
Haha...look....even if what you allege is true, it is still no reason for thecurrent strategy of fighting fire with fire. I get it....more than mostprobably....but i've rarely(if ever) witnessed anything as unprofessional. Justdon't do it. My advice to JK (not that he'd ask nor take it) would be....concentrateon mending this for your shareholders and less on winning for yourself. Asmentioned in my previous post there are lots of 'olive branch' gestures you canmake. Be proactive rather than obstructive. Not only will this increase thechances of trading again, but it increases the chances business performancelong into the future, and isn't that what it's all about?
VISA:"The VISA issue wasobviously a little surprising, but definitely not after discovering VISA arelooking to circumvent competition (EU investigation underway). ISX is a nascentcompetitor who publically baulked at the conditions VISA introduced. So, VISAknow that ISX is suspended and complained about anti-competitve behaviour andthen an issue materialises."
If i understand you correctly, you are saying that VISA have seized on anopportunity to remove a potential competitor by making the conditionsunrealistically onerous, or at worst falsifying an accusation aboutinadequate anti-money laundering processes (or both)? Do I have this right?
If so....this is exactly the reason I turn up to these threads....conspiracy central!! IfVISA truly thought ISX were a nascent competitor then surely they would justbuy them!! MUCH cheaper and simpler than concocting an 'issue' and riskantitrust blowback!!
Anyway, that's the besides the point, the VISA issue is about continuousdisclosure obligations.
Crazy that JK thought it was immaterial, or that it was a misunderstanding, orthat he could get away with not disclosing, or that he thought he could reverseit and act like it never happened, or that he felt that he had actuallydisclosed the divorce adequately? I think this is the official line right?That ISX dropped VISA (and not the other way round) because it's newrules will "restrict trade and competition", and denythat VISA's money laundering division, and the rather plain languagecorrespondence received from that division, had no impact on the decision toleave?
"If there is proof of wrong doing, where is it?"
Be careful what you wish for. VISA may end up being compelled by a court toproduce documents for discovery. Not as a complainant mind you but as apotential witness. The wrongdoing may yet be forthcoming in the form of directevidence of facilitating money laundering (less likely in my opinion), orindirect evidence such as demonstrable tardiness/inadequacy regarding AML processes(more likely in my opinion). If there is truly no basis for VISA's anti-moneylaundering division to suspend ISX, then JK can add VISA to the list of peoplehe feels have wronged him, and sue them for billions of fairytale $$.
Profiting from dodgy customers:"ISX is legallyrequired to deal with regulator licenced operators only. They do not perform aregulator function - that makes sense, because then they'd have to haveregulator budgets, skill sets, infrastructure, regulator to regulatorrelationships, etc. Obviously an inefficient market regulation model if everycompany dealing with another company had to duplicate the same system - justnonsense. They KYC customers of the licenced operators not thelicenced operator. Its surprising how people can confuse this functionaldemarcation and suggest ISX is responsible for regulation of amarket."
Fair enough. Nobody is asking ISX to be a regulator. You have to admit though,there is a distinct irony in a company that includes KYC, AML and Fraud protectionas key features of its payments platform, but is apparently besiegedwith allegations about failures in Knowing Your(Its') Customers, Anti-Money Laundering accusations, andallegations of enabling payments to Fraudulent operations!!!! Can't make thisstuff up!
Side point - There is a philosophy of continuous improvement built intoall quality systems which obliges (and in some cases demands) a system ofregulatory 'pressure' on individual organisations along the supply chain, i.e.their suppliers and customers. For example, the TGA PIC/S code ofGMP accreditation my organisation holds explicitly requires usto conduct inspections on our suppliers. That means physicallygoing to their manufacturing facilities, acting as a regulator, and inspectingagainst the code of GMP. This level of onus does not yet apply to financialquality systems, but it's only a matter of time.
"In addition, ISX is a relatively new tech company and not a fullblown multi decade mature entity, so for people to expect they won't makemistakes is rainbows and fairyfloss nonsense."
Absolutely. This highlights mypoint. Had JK just kept his head down, admitted mistakes were made. Made agesture of good will, like handing back the questionably received performanceshares, or making real tangible efforts to reform the system of customeronboarding, or submitted a well thought out plan to reform internal riskand governance policies, then i believe ISX would likely still be tradingtoday.
But that's not what happened, and now every single little oversight anderror is being dragged up. Money (your money) is being spent fighting fire withfire and ironically pouring accelerant on your already burning moneypile.
"To help crystalise this issue, name all of the so called scamentities that didn't have a licence, or which had a licence and ISX continuedto deal with them post the regulator notifying the market the licence had beencancelled."
***. The answer....as you well know.....is NONE!!
Alternatively, readers can look up OT Capital, OziFin, Nona, FCorp, FTOCapital, RI Markets, AGM Markets, IMMO Servis, Corp destination, Red5 solutions and KAB/Danske bank. All are associated with ISX in somemanner. Readers can make up their own minds whether any of these werescams or dodgy in nature, and what (if anything) that implies or means to thecurrent quagmire ISX finds itself in today.
"The weight of circumstance requires the weight of evidence to bemeaningful. Point to it in the SOR where ASX explicitly pleads - its a jumbledconfusion mix of insinutation, inference and hearsay."
In the words of Jeff Bridges playing 'the Dude' in the Cohen brothersclassic, The Big Lebowski...."That's err....like....youropinion....man".
In my experience (and yes I've had first hand experience of being both awitness to a complainant and a rather stressful period as adefendant) that's just how legal documents are drafted. They don't tell avery tangible or linear 'story'. Each line is drafted in a manner in which thecomplainant is seeking the best chance of an affirmative admission to theallegation. Nothing more and nothing less. The narrative is a distant second tothat primary objective. Unfortunately that makes it very hard to readand disjointed for us non-legally minded.
Certainly there was no hearsay,but if the evidence doesn't back up the accusation, then there won't be a case.As you have said, that's the court's decision, not yours or mine, and we shallknow in due time.
"to have ASX drag any company through the dirt without explicitevidence is plainly wrong and no more an augmentation of the wild west marketthey've helped to create."
More opinion there, but that's essentially what JK is spending your money onwith the counterclaim, so hopefully you win something. Same rules applythough....evidence much?
I think the absolute best case scenario for ISX is 'some' quant of legal costsare due by ASX.
Let me finish this rather longer reply than I had in mind when i started typingthis morning, that I think ISX has a business somewhere back there. Unlike manyof the other car crashes I've followed, which were usually built on hype,misinformation, or accounting 'anomalies', this one seems to have a hope.
Fix the problems of the past, wipe the slate clean (yes that means the mainantagonist JK and his performance shares), install a range of new AML andOnboarding Due Diligence processes, cut the school boy crap and act like aprofessional business that customers are willing to put their trust in......sitback....watch the money roll in.
Good luck all.
