AFR article, page-160

I'm seriously cheesed off about an AFR article that mostly relies on throwing a bit of mud in the knowledge that some will stick. Scaremongering and innuendo is a low and highly unprofessional form of journalism, if you can even call it that. I certainly support an investigation into negative AFR articles with SP movements and shorting numbers in the week leading up to the publishing of the article as a focal point.

Having said that, I am concerned about a couple of items raised in the article. The first one is Hugh Massie's incomplete disclosure of his (indirect) share ownership of BIG. I assume this is correctly reported, because the AFR wouldn't leave itself open to be easily proven wrong that they have published false information. The second one is the issue of shares to FC Capital that I wasn't aware of. The last issue was only last month at 6% of their true value at that time. If there was an agreement struck several years ago, how much longer does that agreement still have to run and how many more shares are involved? I believe this should have been disclosed by BIG. Perhaps it was and have missed it. From my reading, the article suggests that FC Capital pays as much as an uncompetitive 12% for the money it makes available, which it obviously needs to be compensated for. If my interpretation of this part of the article is wrong I'll be very happy to be corrected.

I still in the fundamentals of this company and bought some more BIG at $1.95. Unfortunately I wasn't home and missed the real lows this morning. I did get a massive shock when I got home and saw how much paper losses were showing against my share portfolio.