Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

SP1

0.00%

$1.07 southern cross payments ltd

OK, if you want to argue the guidance is open to a lot of...

First 261 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
aes411

1,634 Posts.

783

02/09/21

17:24

Post #: 55788806
Share

Originally posted by naomhan: ↑

RE: Announcements
The guidance is open to a lot of interpretation, and there will be various standards around that. I don't know the listing rules, but I know from an accounting point of view (so for those wondering why there was no contingent asset nor liability), if you can form a basis of a reasonable at-risk amount (lawyer determination) and the estimated chance of success (lawyer determination), you can calculate a contingent liability. If this amount is immaterial, you wouldn't accrue for it. This is likely similar to the materiality for ASX purposes.

Just to spitball (since that's the word of the week), it's going to be the same reason we don't see CBA announcing every time someone sues them for $100m for emotional distress for foreclosing on a house. Even if they lose, the loss is not going to be $100m, it might be $100k. Then the chances of loss might be 50%, so from $100m and material, the contingency might be $50k. Here, we've sued for $500m. I know a few holders like to jump on that figure, but I've got to hope that most people understand that even if ISX win, the benefits will be reinstatement, costs, and then possibly a smaller payout. If you got $50m out of it, JK would have to be thrilled - the ASX lawyers may come up with a professional opinion that this is the most likely decision if they lose. Given this is fairly bread-and-butter for ASX, their lawyers may view a <50% chance of loss. Let's work on 50% though. So their contingency calculation might be $25m. That's not material.

RE: Hidden memos
How do you know that there are memos that were hidden? You need to prove the meetings happened, and then that memos were formed for them. Most meetings I go into don't result in memos - not to hide things, just because they're pointless. You've stated "not all the ones we were after". How do you know they exist? Maybe you just don't have the smoking gun yet? How can you make judgements if you don't have the smoking gun?

While we're at it, what's the requirement before ASX can suspend? Where's that written? Who said that they need conclusive proof before suspending? We are missing a lot of info here. We only have JK's side of the story, and even that doesn't paint him in the best light.

Expand

OK, if you want to argue the guidance is open to a lot of interpretation, ISX has been suspended for 2 years because of the way they've interpreted the rules. The independent expert review came to the same conclusion as ISX, yet we were still suspended and are being sued for Visa disclosure issues?

You can't compare ASX's revenues to CBA's. The guidance note says variations of 10% or more. I agree we may not get the $464m in the suit, but till the court rules, isn't that the figure we need to work with?

Re: memos.
Yes, most organisations can run meetings without keeping notes, that's ok for private internal matters. It's the company's business.
Suspending ISX is different. ISX is not a department of ASX. Sorry, but how hard is it to grasp this?

ISX Price at posting: $1.07 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
25 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

FMG

Andrew Forrest was seemingly possessed by the spirit of hydrogen – now he's cut 700 jobs and canned FFI

AI stocks: What to expect in 2024-25

Talking Australia's very competitive property landscape: Realty Talks

EVN

Evolution shares up 3% on quarterly results for June showing rise in gold production

NRX

Noronex joins forces with South32 to look for copper in Namibia