CI1 (ASX) Ann: Profit Warning

Originally posted by fleXi007: ↑

Imo Looks as though all those bells and whistles have expired, time to get into the meat and potatoes, the only way to achieve shareholder confidence back is with positive facts and figures. We all have seen the failures the warning announcements decreasing revenue big losses poor spending etc even with those who have high credentials and experience that are a part of Ci1’s board. (this is of concern). Decisions that lacked perhaps guidance / mentoring particularly in the financial lending, BNPL or Singapore lending etc aspect leaving the area of little to no development to grow in size. How can that be when the executive board and non executive board are all about financials failed imo.

The debt insolvency management of Ci1 perhaps the greatest success of Ci1, both here and Hong Kong and for that we thank the former CEO for building a solid business in the field. So where did it all go wrong? Mr Russel and Mr Michael the board have decades perhaps combined over half a century of experience in finance / banking perhaps on a smaller scale so do the executive board members. So now the question begs to be asked, was the former CEO at fault for bringing the success of debt management operations to Ci1, OR that the board lacked scrutiny or perhaps failed to successfully scrutinise the financial lending side acquisitions of Ci1, where’s the disclaimer for the board ?

The former CEO strengths was debts management etc, evidently a successful lawyer in the industry. Perhaps why the former CEO chosen a board that’s all related to financials so that there can be extensive scrutiny when purchasing acquisitions in financial lending space, so who then failed ?
Why is it the ones with the highest experience in financial Banking lending etc sit as part of Ci1’s board who have allegedly all the skills that are required to scrutinise financial acquisitions have perhaps failed that still remain a part of Ci1 board, wait by the biggest failures of Ci1 are financial lending is it not and Jimmie resign or pushed out by the board? Correct me if I’m wrong.

not professional DYOR all imo

Expand

Respectfully I think you are wrong. My take, is that the other board members (Michael and Russell) essentially had no power previously. They were on the board to fulfill the requirement of 2 Australian directors. Remember that up until recently, Jimmie was CEO and Chairman of the board. He was in control of the decision making at both the board level and management level. So if anyone was responsible for scrutiny of these deals it was him.

I believe that ultimately Jimmie's demise was due to a clash with Michael and Russell. Jimmie has shown himself to be greedy and unscrupulous. If he could stay on as CEO and keep embezzling company funds after he was booted from the board then he would. He's gone because the other directors finally got the chance to push him out and clean up the company.

Jimmie was good at doing the work. He was lower level management material at best. He failed to recognise his own shortcomings. He should have appointed a skilled leader for the business long ago. But his ego couldn't stand that. He had to have it all for himself. The core bankruptcy business is solid, but the acquisitions have been a mess. I won't at all be shocked if it comes out that these deals benefited Jimmie in some other way that didn't help shareholders. He's either incompetent at the management/board level or has been doing something shady.