Conference/Tweets/Presentations/News, page-745

Listed companies can make their own internal projections but when you disclose as an announcement to the market, the market would perceive that as something concrete that can be delivered (otherwise what stops every ASX listed companies from making more promising guidance - you would see their sp slammed when they miss guidance especially at the top end of the market). subsequent to ASX queries, it was revealed that the distributor would just lose their exclusivity if they don't meet the numbers - it is not contractually binding nor a take or pay, and as I said, the distributors have nothing to lose taking on Ohm, they have many failed products too that didn't get market traction. It was perception play like GSW did with Amazon. And these were the reasons why one cannot trust these management - they would not leave , they hope they get new holders who have forgotten their past deeds.

This practice was what many tech microcaps did during the tech boom - it was a play on their stock price and when sp rise, management gets their performance shares without question. ASX failed at controlling these companies as they wanted to attract more tech companies to list, those without track record.

I refer to these companies as yesteryear tech stocks. Players then who sold only made money.

Now here you have a different new play. BUD would no longer be a tech stock but a consumer lighting stock. And the acquisition IMO favours the vendors (sellers) more than the acquirer (BUD and its shareholders) because you are paying a large price to buy a business that is still promising and hasn't yet delivered tangible profits nor cashflow positive. This is the price of a bailout that existing holders would need to carry.