Glaucus, page-34

I was really impressed with what sounded like an informed and balanced opinion... and then I read past your first sentence.

1) It is no secret that the Hong Kong bourse falls victim to manipulation. That’s your first mistake.

I’ll let you look at some of the shorts on the SEHK called out by MuddyWaters or Bronte Capital (among others), as opposed to headline Bloomberg articles. The companies they short can be as dubious as Enron and yet still manage to trade higher...

2) Unlike your attempted rebuttal regarding VinoMofo’s financial statements, Glaucus used the company’s actual financial statements (that can be obtained for a small fee from ASIC by anyone). You used an AFR article...

While you may consider the AFR to be the last bastion of accurate financial reporting in Australia, unfortunately it does not (I repeat: does not) trump the statutory accounts that have been lodged with the corporate regulator by VinoMofo itself and relied upon by Glaucus.

Glaucus is correct about VinoMofo’s finances. Your AFR article is not.

I am not sure why this has to be pointed out to you...

3) Do you understand cashflow statements?

VinoMofo did burn through $6.7MM of cash in FY17, which left it with a cash balance of $2.1MM.

Hint: the cash balance of $2.1MM is at the ‘end’ of the financial year (i.e., after the $6.7MM in cash used has been subtracted from the cash balance held at the ‘start’ of the year).

Check the second table on page 44 of the Glaucus report if you’re still unsure.

Cashflow statements are even laid out in terms of three easy-to-follow sets of ‘activities’, which ultimately lead you to that ‘cash at end of period’ issue you seemed to have so much trouble with before.

I hope that this is not too confusing.