Share
2,063 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 729
clock Created with Sketch.
04/03/18
17:04
Share
Originally posted by 5hareholder
↑
There are plenty of bears such as Shaprio and a dozen odd posters on this forum who think this is a zero. But noone, including Shaprio, have been able to make sense of these pertinent points.
1) Why were the high profile personnel on the inside not dumping their equity? The stock rose as high as 30% between receipt of the ASX query letter on Feb 14th and the trading halt/suspension. Insiders would've been well aware that the ASX was probing.
2) Why were those high up taking equity payments instead of cash if this was a scam? What did management and backers have to gain out of holding on to the equity?
3) $30m cash receipts in the first 3 quarters of CY17, well beyond the sponsorship cap, before booking the final quarter of CY17 receipts of $22m+, which were largely sponsored. Where did that room in the cap come from in that last quarter? If the whole system was flawed, this would've collapsed in the prior quarter imo.
4) 35% of customers use Finstro. Therefore 65% do not?
5) 2016 customers were largely retained in 2017. If the model was broken and video views were falsified, why did almost all customers renew their membership?
Not trying to defend BIG. I have a pittance at stake here compared to others. Just reckon there is far more too this than Shaprio et al are leading us on to believe. The above points barely scratch the surface on the gap in the bearish argument against BIG.
They quite clearly have disclosure problems. But a broken business model? Hmmm, not so sure.
Expand
I totally agree with you, more great factual observations!
It does not add up to me to be a business that is dying or should be.
BIG leans towards the positive side for me and that anything found to be what I will say is 'mismanaged' will be 'fixed' with multiple actions to keep on with the positive growing momentum of this business.