Obviously your explanations is to define what is the process to get a proper advice. However@KOOEEE doesnt fit into the proper process. He is the so called bad adviser that ASIC should look into.
It was great that someone posted a different side of story about the company. However KOOEEis persistently to recommend this is a dog stock and asked the existing holders to get rid of. This become a contractual advice to the general public. One or twice, we can say that's your personal opinion, but when it becomes consistent information, this is an advice. You may argue he must get monetary benefit to establish the relationship - remembered he has a nephew in broker firm, are you sure his clients are not picking up the cheap stock becoz KOOEEE is advising the holders in HC to unload?? Otherwise who have picked up millions of shares when it is still in downward trend?? Plus KOOEEE try to convince audience that his recommendation is valid by indicating that this is supported by a research done by another broker (his nephew). I couldn't find an evidence to disagree that him and his nephew did not gain any benefit from this. (KOOEEE always agreed that any opinions shared here are proper advice - he always made statement that Brett64 recommended ppl to buy into this, so the same theory work vice versa)
(If always you need to classify an advice must be done via a SOA, then alot of advisers can get around it to give advice and do not liable for any consequences).
In short, I believe when a persistent information flow to the same audiences (country bob, knwee2, Brett64, Pogio, act, gucci...) this is a contractual recommendation/statement/advice.
ASIC website always tell you the code of conduct to follow, anything outside the framework, is illegal - which KOOEEE has demonstrated to us over the last few weeks.
NET Price at posting:
4.6¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)