SGH, page-91

It's a three ring circus that's for sure.

No fraud has been proven in a court of law but that's not the same thing as saying no fraud was found, unless you have gone through the claims in detail.

No fraud will be proven because no-one is looking for it. The question now before the court is was Quindell fraudulently misrepresented to SGH - quite different.

Perhaps the SGH bailout of Quindell shareholders reduces the pressure on the pommy SFO to claim a scalp?

The court doesn't disagree with me, it hasn't got an opinion.

It's important to separate the quality of the idea from the source which many can't do it seems. The facts were that a scruffy short-sellers' claims had more credibility than the professionals - so were vindicated by the sequel.

A little reasonable doubt seems good when buying stocks.

It's hard to concur with arguments that it couldn't be predicted and SGH was a safe investment when evidence to the contrary was publicly available and vindicated by the sequel.

This is not a personal comment it relates to the market, when the promise of easy gains is around people lose their heads.

Yes it's just opinion but backing myself on the facts when everyone disagrees with me is my natural habitat. I don't need people to agree with me to be correct.

Most people should stay clear of financial markets, I agree there.