Share
2,068 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 54
clock Created with Sketch.
19/11/19
07:15
Share
Originally posted by ben79
↑
Really good response from ISX today. Much more clarity than the second round. It does appear that the ASX has a particular ideological bias against the higher risk customer base and continues to conflate ISX with the activities of its customers. ISX tried to address this in various responses, e.g. Q9 whilst remaining respectful (in tone).
I see some ongoing debate around disclosure / interpretation of materiality in various contexts. I have enjoyed the commentary on accounting standards. Fascinating. For those who quote AASB 8, I think ISX dealt with this superbly (Qst 3).
What's clear now is that there was no fraud or manipulation of revenue. Some paid downrampers here claiming integration fees are not recurring as if this precludes performance hurdles being met. For the removal of doubt, it does not. If anything, it provides a strong explanation as to why revenues in the May/ June period peaked.
I'm also satisfied with the explanations provided that revenues post 30 June were deferred rather than contracts being terminated/ lost. A number of explanations were given. It's apparent that it's not possible to fully attribute to any particular cause. Not sure how ASX can ask this question in a different way or expect a different response (than provided to Qst 19). ASX will need to form a view here either way.
Perversely, I have really enjoyed gaining a much deeper insight into the team's capabilities.
Looking forward to ASX bringing this matter to a head.
Expand
You said it well. I read this Q&A up to 1am. Now I think if its an option, JK should request for a face to face discussion with James Gerraty to iron out any remaining issues and work out how to proceed if there is breach of listing rules then ann it. I always find a face to face meeting tears down barriers and make better resolutions. Honestly faster.