Share
1,188 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 92
clock Created with Sketch.
20/09/16
10:56
Share
Originally posted by walkingeagle
↑
I'm not running the company down - I just don't like this kind of thing going on when there are bigger fish to fry. I'm pragmatic about the situation, which I don't think will help anyone. WTG's price fell significantly (as it would because the escrow was going to be paid out to shareholders) whereas SGH's hasn't moved. If SGH fails to get a result (I doubt it will - warranty escrows are very specific animals) the shorters will be back in. That's as I see things anyway.
SGH has a fine history and is potentially still a great company. IMO (and there's some evidence to support my view) it has leaders who aren't up to it - one in particular. Is evidence really needed? Recovery (imv) would probably come a lot more quickly and be a lot more certain under different management, unaffected by the traumas of the recent past. I'm not talking about BH - the jury's still out on his ability to achieve great things.
I'm underwater on my holding so will hopefully be able to choose a better time to reduce - it doesn't affect anything or anyone apart from me. Maybe something positive will happen before I do to make me change my mind. My own position never affects my ability or my inclination to speak as I find.
How about you?
Expand
You have no understanding of any of this. The claim will be a broader one of deceptive and misleading conduct against the company and likely more than the entirety of the escrow money. It isn't a claim specifically for the escrow money. Again, "Caveat emptor" has nothing to do with this in that this relates to misleading and reliance. If one is induced into purchase via misleading information it is irrelevant whether they did enough due diligence.