Explanation, page-40

The problem with having the ASX as a market regulator is that it is also a market participant, in as much as it is a listed entity, and it is also a profit-driven business, which depends upon any expenditure it makes contributing to that business making a profit.

As such, there would seem to be little profit-motive for the ASX to pursue an incident such as this. It wouldn't make commercial sense. A vigorous and detailed investigation that got to the truth of what has really taken place would require significant expenditure by ASX Ltd, with very little prospect of any return or profit on that expenditure, particularly given that BBX has little left in the way of funds that could be taken in penalties if it was decided that the company was somehow at fault.

Of course there might be a business incentive for the ASX to uncover the truth of what has occurred here, if the widespread awareness of these inexplicable events and the resulting large losses to unsuspecting market participants were seen by it as a threat to the perceived credibility of market-sensitive ASX announcements, upon which both we as share market investors and the ASX as a profitable business are completely dependent.

But if the whole incident were to be simply allowed to slide under the carpet in the quiet of the pre-Christmas holiday and then be forgotten in the new year, then this could in theory be seen as a more revenue-efficient outcome for the company ASX Ltd.

That wouldn't help me though, because I would never again be able to fully trust the credibility of any market-sensitive ASX release by a small mineral exploration company, no matter how reputable I believed the people involved to be, and I would never again be able to fully trust the regulatory function of the ASX, in investigating, explaining and bringing to account possible technical errors or irregularities in these releases.