@BigJas
sympathise but ill make a point to you that i think applies to a lot of people who are confused
listed co mgt are entitled to be wrong. even repeatedly.
even if they happen to have intentionally misrepresented the likelihood of something occurring -
unless you can prove they knew otherwise prior - as an investor you generally have only yourself to blame if you take them at their word.
So on simple things where 'likely' fails to become anything - mgt typically has no culpability.
This is why ASX was largely barking down the wrong tree - because they were basically trying to second guess subjective future earnings assesssments to do with the 3 yr sales targets. Even if they fail to be hit - all mgt will do is say 'thing change'. Its legally unenforceable. (though i expect thats why ASX asked the questions - so it has records of company thinking to refer to when the 4+ years roll around)
If business plans fail to deliver - thats a mark against mgt ability. But its not generally a compliance violation.
where all this changes is if its proven mgt knew differently - at the time it issued deceptive information.
communications proven to be repeatedly intended to deceive in nature, non disclosure of material business changes - those are the things regulators would have real and genuine grounds on which to act
from what ive read - most of you on HC dont separate between the 2.
which is why you dont understand why my own views would be unchanged by say, large share price falls - but completely changed by other evidence.
there's a world of difference
