I appreciate that it was not your intention for your post to...

I appreciate that it was not your intention for your post to present any argument that was critical of Ryzie. All Big holders on HC owe him some thanks for posting his research. I too did some digging last weekend and shared my thoughts, but won’t claim them to be as well informed as his.

Having had a week to reflect on the history/events that led up to 50% drop in price my thoughts are now these:

• Big didn’t break any rules, but were not as open about the nature of the deal with FC and any bonus/incentives associated with their performance as I would now like. Management could have indicated that the deal would or could result in the need to issue securities (which appears to be the 500k shares at 20c).
• Big’s governance two years ago had some room for improvement. But given their size and budget at the time their standards were probably not unreasonable and I suspect this is a criticism that could be leveled at ALL micro-caps
• There wasn’t any ambiguity and Richard’s comments at the AGM about using shares to pay for acquisitions (or services). I’m a little concerned about the ambiguity in his statement this regard in the recent shareholder update
• Ryzie has said that the lack of transparency in previous notices regarding share distribution will mean he is more careful in scrutinising them in future. I think he is absolutely right to feel this way and I’ll also be looking carefully and asking questions.
• There are still questions about Massie’s ownership and beneficial interest in some holding companies. JC makes a claim that he is still a beneficiary in a holding company that the prior BIG update says is incorrect. This ought to be relatively easy to clear up by either BIG of JC publishing the details of the current directors with beneficial interests in the holding company. This has not yet happened.
• I think the quality of journalism shown by JC is especially low. (Woodward and Bernstein should have no concern about the competition. ) His inability to find information on the ASX website has shown that his article was poorly researched, he implies wrong doing without offering proof, he makes no allowance in his criticism of Big for their, size, budget or maturity at the time of his alleged and still unproven allegations. IMO he wants to tear down anyone who is prospering or different. If Others were to adopt his journalistic standards they could easily do a similar hatchet job on him about his published statements of the need to use the big4 auditors and of the timing of his his articles relative to the shorting of stock mentioned in them.

Lumpy