Second letter to Mr. Longo, Chair of ASIC, page-86

I am qualifying my statements below with:

"Although I believe that the information contained in this document (post) is accurate and reliable, I have not independently verified information contained in this document (post) which is derived from publicly available sources......"
This should make this post acceptable since it appears it is what made the OM report acceptable to ASIC (see below).

I received a letter from ASIC, supposedly as an answer to my letters to Longo (1 & 2) and my letter of complaint regarding Ownership Matters (OM). This is the same letter that was given to everyone who complained. I will post the response in full in the next post in the spirit of keeping the market informed. Here, in this post, I will summarise and interpret.

Firstly, the General Counsel (GC) did not really answer any questions I posed in the 3 letters, such as:

1. Who requisitioned the OM report on ISX that appears to have initiated ASX's "suspicions" as well as a flood of shorters resulting in market volatility?
2. Why did Dean Paatsch of OM send ASX their report on ISX on the same day as it was released to a group of selected subscribers?
3. Why didn't OM allow ISX to answer the questions in the report prior to its release - questions which would have been easily answered with a phone call?
4. Why did ASX continue to work with Dean Paatsch (OM) regarding ISX prior to the ISX suspension?
5. How much did the OM report influence the suspension of ISX?

Instead of answering the above questions, the GC proceeded to justify why the OM report was o.k. He said: "The statement on page 1 about performance targes would not mislead because it was qualified elsewhere in the report by prominent information which ASIC considers would prevent the reader from being led into error." (My emphasis and my comment: I suppose this qualification was the statement: "Although we believe that the information contained in this document is accurate and reliable, Ownership Matters has not independently verified information contained in this document...." If this is what the GC was pointing to that made the OM statements o.k. and justified, then I might just well give up on this regulator.) He then goes on to say, "Other statements are either correct, are opinions, or are questions posed rather than assertions...." (My comment: really!? We get deleted here for less!) And then, "Some questions, such as ISX meeting its performance revenue... are now the subject of proceedings brought by ASIC and will be determined in Federal Court." (My comment: a non-answer.)

And then, instead of answering the following questions:

1. Was ASX appropriately using its "absolute discretion" in asking questions over every part of ISX's business under listing rule 18.7 and then publishing the questions and answers on MAP under listing rule 18.7A?
2. Asic must carry out their investigations in private. Why did ASIC allow ASX to carry out the investigations in public when the questions asked were in ASIC's purview?
3. Since neither ASX nor ASIC had sufficient evidence to suspend ISX and they knew that the ISX price was stabilising (as they said in conversations within 24 hours of suspending ISX), why was ISX suspended?

GC said, (ya-da, ya-da, ya-da..., BU($&#!U, BU ($&#!U, BU($!#U …. )

1. ASX is required to administer its listing standards....
2. ASX also monitors compliance...
3. ASIC is responsible for authorizing the operation of Australia's licensed markets...
4. At the time of the decision by ASX to suspend trading in shares of ISX, ASIC did not have reason to believe that ASX's decision was unreasonable. (My comment, Right! And then why did CL of ASIC say "I am reluctant to involve ASIC"? And why wouldn't ASIC give ASX a direction... or materials that ASIC promised?)

1.

Frankly, the whole response sounded exactly like someof our anti-ISXers on HC! I personally don't think he even read, let alone thought seriously about, our questions or complaints.