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

SP1

Click for more information

0.00%

$1.07 southern cross payments ltd

ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-1762

First 1762 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
BJReplay

620 Posts.

620

11/06/23

16:30

Post #: 68238834
Share

Originally posted by itzgr82balive: ↑

It is clear from your questions that you have no respect for pro-ISX people and think, because you have a difference of opinion that we are all non-thinking idiot followers just because we have money in the game and something to lose. To be clear, I have lost on small-cap companies and accept the consequences. ISX is the first company that I have felt was unfairly treated by the ASX.

Your question "what would convince me that ISX had been in the wrong".

The 2018 revenue - that JK did it totally to enrich himself with no regard to the shareholders or the business. What would convince: Hard proof (not supposition) that the Directors and CEO were installing bogus customers funded by ISX through some kind of round-robin activity just to get the revenue and knew there would be no future transaction revenue, To date, there is no indication of such activities and we are done. Since ~ 80% of on-line applications fail, just because some, or their subsidiaries, did not produce GPTV does not convince me that this was done solely to enrich himself.

Disclosure:
2018 revenue: The judge would have to have a good explanation for why he rules that ISX did not disclose. I think this one could go either way. JK was obviously being asked whether there was a majority of non-recurring revenue in the 2018 numbers. I think I remember that JK said to the analyst " you already know the answer to that - read the numbers", but would not say specifically. Again, I would have to read the judgement.

VISA: I believe there is nothing here. There is plenty of evidence that VISA was trying to squeeze ISX out or put them down a level due to competition reasons and reasons and VISA's new approach to the market. It makes sense that ISX would attempt to negotiate as far as they could go before announcing to the market. And because they believed (as per signed affidavits under oath) that AML had nothing really to do with it, it makes sense that they would go the distance to try to reverse the decision. What really convinced me here is that JK was going to announce and had the announcement already written when he spoke to Seafort and it was Seafort that convinced JK that he could negotiate further and not announce. Again, I would accept the judge's ruling if it was supported clearly by the rule of law and showed that he had clearly taken all the evidence in account.

But yes, I would like an explanation on why (or if) JK did not disclose truthfully to the independent consultants and if there is no explanation, then there might be some decision by the judge regarding this, but I still don't think that this would be enough to sway the argument that ISX did not disclose VISA in the timeframe that ASIC says they should have. I am not sure that this has anything to do with the issue of disclosure to the market.

If McEvoy's decisions do not make sense, then I would hope that ISX would appeal the decision. There have been many decisions that have been reversed by a higher court that have been won initially by ASIC that on appeal they have lost.

Have I said I want to buy more? I have got a buy on the stock, but maybe I will, or maybe I won't. I have 300k shares in SP1 and 30k in ISXFEU. I am looking forward to ISXFEU listing on LSE in the future. I do still think others should buy ISXFEU.

Expand

Thanks for the response.

I still think you've drunk the JK kool-aid (Visa would never have considered ISX a threat - their turnover is $14.1T vs ISX was $2.5B - at most, based on estimates - Visa is roughly 5,000 times higher than ISX, ditto ASX wouldn't have considered ISX a threat), but you've answered fairly and honestly, and I can't ask for more than that.

Last edited by BJReplay: 11/06/23

SP1 Price at posting: $1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
5 Upvote

1 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

SMI

Gold intercept of 8.6 g/t continues the positive storyline for Santana at NZ's RAS deposit

Earnings wrap Monday Week 34: A2 Milk, Bluescope, Suncorp's climate woes & more

PR1

Fourfold skarn increase points the way to viable garnet project, says Pure

NOX

Noxopharm aims for autoimmune market with first human trial of SOF-SKN

Good habits matters when it comes to finances

There are more pages in this discussion • 1,825 more messages in this thread...

First 1762 Last

Add SP1 (ASX) to my watchlist