What do you mean wrong? Actually they were right. Glaucus...

What do you mean wrong? Actually they were right. Glaucus stated: Blue Sky systematically inflated the valuation of its assets, was paying dividends out of capital raisings and that they valued the business at $1.70.

The only thing Glaucus were wrong on was the value of the business, because its not $1.70 its $1.45...

So the $150 million they had in the bank / raised is now only down to $40mil an improvement to their 32million they predicted a month ago? Thats not exciting news, thats, ok news. They only thing it tells me is that they are still raising capital (based on this market update - 8mil a month)

Lets also take a step back and have a look at their last update. On the 31st May 2018 they had $51 million in the bank (Page 6). So based on the most recent data available to us, our earlier predictions were that this had 6 / 8 weeks of cash after 30 June 2018. However if we just assume that the month of June was indicative of the new recurring situation. They are burning, 11 million a month (31 May 2018 @ $51 Mil, 30 June 2018 40 Mil = 11 Million a month out the door)

So rather than 6 / 8 weeks of cash left, they have 16 weeks of cash left.

But I also like the half speak they did again.

BAF Announcement:
This now completes the independent review of the carrying value of all funds within the Alternatives Fund’s portfolio, other than:
• the Cove Property Group 441 Ninth Avenue Trust (the independent valuation review is currently being finalised and is expected to be completed in August 2018);
• the Water Fund which is independently marked to market monthly (the process of which
is managed each month by an external custodian and fund administrator); and
• investments which are exiting or contracted for sale, as announced

BLA Announcement:

The BAF announcement also confirms that the independent reviews of asset valuations for all
Blue Sky managed funds in which BAF has invested have now been completed, with the exception of one US commercial property asset that is currently being held at cost, the valuation for which is expected to be completed in August 2018.

Do you notice the slight discrepancy - the BAF note around the investments they are exiting not being valued, vs BLA ignoring them. So on the same day, an hour apart, one release said that all valuations except the US property one (lets ignore the water fund, as it is in theory interdependently reviewed already) and one said that they are also not valuing investments that they are earmarked for exit.