In regards to the AFR v BIG discussion I think both sides of the...

In regards to the AFR v BIG discussion I think both sides of the argument are have valid points.

Firstly, there are clear issues with the way BIG have developed their business model and it is now very difficult to ascertain just what is factual and what numbers have been artificially enhanced (from financials to youtube etc etc).  I guess just how much of it is absolute fact will determine whether there are just a number of changes that need to be made to the business (personal & how they go about it) or whether they never trade again.

In regards to the AFR, the way some of the articles have been portrayed clearly highlight to me the narrative they are trying to run and what their underlying motivations are.  The 'BIG links to ponzi scheme' headline was just one example of where they have completely dramatized the situation, using a rough link to the company years ago and portraying it as a ponzi. Scaremongering at its best??  These investigation pieces haven't been made with a neutral, open mind..they have been done with a clear prerogative and every detail has been slanted in a negative light.  Some rightfully so, some I think not...

To be honest I don't have a great deal of faith in either atm, so all we can do is sit back and await the ASX/ASIC investigation to finish....they're the only ones who are looking at this situation with a neutral mindset.

Cheers