Had a long weekend away from HC, work & home and was surprised to view the last 3 days' posts on differing threads on HC/ISX later today. Was surprised by some of the posts I read from Sat/Sun. There are many ISX posters I 'trust' and value, in as much as we trust anyone on a de-identified forum. It doesn't mean I am 'blinkered'.
***
Today's ISX ANN - viewed quickly at lunchtime today....first rate response from ISX CEO, CFO etc. Many first rate ISX HC informed/intelligent/considered posts in response also.
I notice the trolling and newspaper garbage is beginning to infiltrate the thread later today. So won't post my thoughts tonight and also want to read and research the ANN's Questions further when time permits. Not so much the ISX responses. Just the questions posted to ISX in order to try and identify the motive/background/etc for the interrogation.
***
I agree with Patrick re political influence already 'at play' and with the government stating and needing to have an invested interest in the future of Australia's fin/regtech fledgling sector.
Safauroa - happy that some have started contacting 'regulatory and influential others' today but I personally won't be lobbying politicians yet. Too early in my opinion to lobby. The suspension could be over within the next few weeks.
The parts I had begun investigating/researching further tonight - my first note from the ANN was OTC -
Research note 1:
Reference to a link: copyright - part of the freely available text is below:
An ASIC spokesman declined to comment. The Treasury — which will ultimately decide if any such product intervention by ASIC is passed into law — was “warming to the idea it could be too harsh”, said another source.
“Fintech can’t operate in a world that’s so uncertain that if they introduce a product that ASIC in an ideological way don’t like — operating perfectly legally — can be just wiped out.”
In August ASIC proposed a ban on the sale of binary options to retail clients and restrictions on the sale of contracts for difference (CFDs) after it found that retail investors had “suffered, and are likely in future to suffer, significant detriment” from trading the products."
Research note 2:
My 2nd note to research further: haven't had time to yet - (this note is linked to research note 1 - ASIC is now considering submissions to allow or relax CFD's) - [a direct contrast to 9EC media articles stating differently during the past few weeks].
Who issued the Financial Services license to OT Capital? It could only have been ASIC and in which year did ASIC approve the OT Capital license? What was ASIC's due diligence on OTC and APRA's - why couldn't ASIC's or APRA's due diligence and acceptance and granting of a license to OTC be understood to signify that OTC could be approved/verified as a legitimate entity by any other contracting parties? When did ASIC revoke OTC's license and why? Who did ASIC alert and in in what timeframe?
Research note 3: to investigate further also: haven't nailed the facts on this yet but know I will find them re timing....
NOTE TO SOME: OTC was/is an insignificant/low volume merchant who contracted ISX’s services for less than 1 month (??) in 2018. Ignore if you can the 9EC headlines today purporting that OTC was once a significant source of revenue for ISX last year (?). Couldn't read 9EC's articles this evening. 9EC journalists are the scum of Australian reporting. Are any other Australian journalists worse at their profession and as proud of their malicious, misconstrued reporting? I asked someone that question yesterday and they said, yes, there is a magazine called Take5. Apparently Take5 owners also produce New Idea (No Idea). Can't believe No Idea hasn't been litigated/sued out of existence.
