Looking forward - Nov 2019 onward

I believe that ISX have delivered a 1^st rate, honest and accurate response to both sets of ASX’s questions.   Suspension will need to be lifted soon ---- unless ASX require further information to assist ASX understand the company.

I also believe that the second set of ASX’s questions devised by ASX 15 Oct 2019 – appear to be similar to a ‘test case model questionnaire’ - due primarily to ASX’s inexperience in understanding/and their lack of sector knowledge when dealing with the complexities of ISX – ISX being, a newly innovated, unique, national and international operation with complex revenue streams/client bases/jurisdictions/currencies etc.   

A ‘test case scenario model questionnaire’, would also view ASIC’s role and hence why I was curious earlier to know re OT Capital and ASIC’s timing (period) of granting OTC an AFSL license and the timing of when/how ASIC alerted any ‘affected’ other parties to their concerns re OTC.  ISX responded diligently and quickly once they were aware of OTC’s ‘lack of ASIC legitimacy’.  OTC were ‘terminated’ as an ISX client.  I wonder whether ASIC informed ISX directly?  If not, why not?  Should ASIC have notified all affected parties immediately – did they, should they?

[OTC’s legitimacy had been endorsed by ASIC as ASIC granted OTC’s financial license.  ASIC is also now currently reviewing - whether CFD/FX operations be permitted to continue – outcome unknown to date.]

Similarly, ISX responded quickly in relation to KAB when ISX were informed more fully (initial KAB outcome was unknown by ISX and other parties at the time).  View timing of, advice given to ASX - this excerpt from ISX’s 25 Oct 2019 – page 12 of the ASX ANN of 28 Oct 2019:
“On the 16th September 2018, Finansiel Stabilitiet (FS) wrote to iSignthis eMoney Ltd (ISEMEE) and advised that it
had assumed control of the KAB, that the bank would continue to operate as usual, and that : “The institution will
continue its operations for now. You can therefore maintain your customer relationship with the institution.”
There was correspondence between the 16th and 25th September 2019 between SEMEE and FS regarding efficient
operations and the status of ISEMEE client funds held at the KAB. During that time the likely duration and extent
of impact of the external administration of the bank on ISX was unclear and until the end of that period was
considered “insufficiently definite” within the meaning of Listing Rule 3.1A.1. The executive and board considered
overnight correspondence, considered that an ASX announcement had become appropriate and prepared an
announcement to the market on 25th September which addressed revenue impact and alternative arrangements.

For anyone interested – the difference between test case questionnaires and test case scenarios.
https://www.google.com/search?clien...ence between test case and test case scenario
____
As for the first set of questions ‘composed’ by ASX to send to ISX – the ASX questions were ‘allegedly derived’ and devised due to the contents of an Ownership Matters report which had been circulated to the AFR, other media, hedge fund managers and selected ‘others’ with OM’s disclaimer –  OM’s disclaimer defies any informed or legal belief in thinking this allows anyone the right to publish or a right to disseminate defamatory, unsubstantiated, unverified information.   ASX did not have to choose to act on the OM, AFR allegations by suspending ISX from trading.  But given the volatility in the SP trading once OM, AFR started disseminating their unsubstantiated, defamatory and biased reporting, I believe it was in the best interests of ISX shareholders witnessing the media attacks/reports, ASX anomalous trades/volumes/prices data that share trading was suspended.  It was also not in ASX’s financial interests to suspend trading as the trading volumes in ISX would have provided ASX with inordinate revenue.  Hence why I believe ISX or ASIC requested the suspension.

Below is the ASX link.  You can freely google search to obtain the AFR, SMH, The Age newspaper articles printed prior to/during and after this ANN’s release on Google.
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20191011/pdf/449dj9z8nnvl9y.pdf
___
From experience - I do know for non-ASX listed companies - that Commonwealth, State Govt, R & D, private sponsorship, corporate entity/partnership funders request audits which investigate sources of revenue for R & D projects and devise a set of criteria on how revenue/expenditure/outcomes should be reported.  Usually these audit questionnaires are devised and conducted in response to legislated changes/changing agendas in the Commonwealth Govt’s national statistical reporting of data.  The reporting guidelines change frequently and usually ‘evolve’ in response to new legislation over time (1-2+ years) and then periodically, if the federal government retains power, or when a new federal government is elected.

Hence, ASIC and ASX may now need to determine, devise and instruct procedures and reporting guidelines for ALL ASX listed companies to ensure they are gathering accurate and relevant data from each ASX sector.  There are many ASX sectors and companies not being monitored at all by ASX – some ASX listed companies in some sectors, only report once a year.  Why aren’t ASX and DFAT (?) investigating those companies and their lack of reporting?  Why hasn’t ASX mandated quarterly reporting for all ASX listed companies?
_____

I know that ISX were prescient (prescient adjective: prescient

1. having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.

and have reported their data more accurately as they had moved from reporting forecast/predictive revenue to reporting on actual processing volumes.  No-one prompted ISX to do this.
___

As for performance shares, ISX recipients have earned them 10 times over in my opinion.  Plus, I would rather those shares be held by them, then by retail investors or hedged or managed funds.

My advice to some “genuine” HC posters - take care when predicting an ISX trading price when it opens post-suspension given the unknown percentage of retail investors who may be nervous and ill-informed and also do consider how ill-liquid some of their holdings may be – e.g. bought over $1+ and don’t know the company and can’t understand what ISX does….plus the effect of the shortsellers needing to buy out at a lower price (safe to assume below $1.25+).  Plus also factor in the fear and scaremongering effect on those who have bought, given the scare tactics of OM, 9EC journalists, Motley Fool and HC trollers and the suspension caused by their reporting.  Many of the ill-informed, scared retailers who are holding and ‘sell’ on open are likely to have their shares ‘vultured’ quickly and those retail investors selling out quickly and out of fear, are likely to blame others for their decision to sell at a loss.  Those others they blame, won’t be 9EC.  But does it matter??  Maybe it is better those types of investors 'sell' or 'exit' quickly?????.

I can certainly understand why some valued ISX posters are not posting at all or infrequently on HC at present.  Some of the trollers’ posts are extremely defamatory and unsubstantiated and some posts are not moderated or challenged by HC.   I expect to be ‘trolled’ for posting this but I do consider my viewpoint is valid and is based on what I do know, have read, have researched and learnt.
__
I haven’t read this afternoon's/tonight’s ISX HC posts yet.  I hope my post does not cross over any previous unread posts.  I do expect the trollers out in force – it is Halloween night.  It is also near the end of quarterly ASX reporting due 31 October – surprised the trollers haven’t found many other targets.  I can see a few other ASX listed companies, at an earlier quick glance, that are more worthy of the trollers’ attention and also worthy of ASX’s reporting ‘investigative’ attention.
__
Another note:  I don’t expect any ISX GPTV updates (for revenue or any other data, up to and including COB Thursday 31 October - COB in which countries and at what time?) by Friday 1 November.  Get real!  No time for a company to collate, analyse, review or validate prior to release.  Hence why I have decided to create a new thread - Nov 2019 onward.