Another AFR article, page-703

Its hard to say if the "receipts from customers" in the 4C of BIG is necessarily incorrect.

And I mean that with utmost sincerity. There may infact be nothing untoward with how this has been reported.

Checkout the cash receipts from APT for example. They book all merchant sales as "receipts from customers" even though this is not in the slightest bit of a realistic indicator of underlying revenue.

I'd go as far to say that APTs cash receipts is far more misleading than BIGs if read in isolation.

Where the disclosure issue lies for BIG is in the specifics of that cash balance, and how the balance sheet aligns with the nature of the financing facility. And to complete that loop of transparency, proper disclosure of sponsorship cashflow would be required.

The deeper I dig in to this, the more Shaprio's line of thought doesn't quite add up. He's slinging mud, but it doesn't all stick. A chequered past does not destroy a good business model, no matter how hard he might try to play that agenda. Twiggy Forest destroyed his nickel Anaconda play before taking FMG to powerhouse status. Have a read back through the mud slung at him in mid 2000s. Curiously, Shaprio has offered no explanation for the incredibly high client retention rate from 2016-2017, nor has he attempted to dispute it.

Furthermore if he was a neutral journo, why wouldn't he discuss the obvious point of how did BIG sustain operations when the net sales since finstro was instated goes far beyond the rolling sponsorship cap? If the system was flawed, or dare I say fraudulent, it would not have made it this far. The "line of credit" would've been maxed out long ago.

There is plenty more water to go under the bridge here imo.