I am back. So is SGH, page-768

Like said before I can look myself in the mirror without being ashamed.

Life is to short for dishonesty.

Yeah, okay. Let's look at two of your recent efforts.

1)https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/4128/Hedge fund activism Final.pdf

9olives has already made the point but just for the sake of completeness - from page 3:

The filing of a Schedule 13D revealing an activist fund’s investment in a target firm results in large positive average abnormal returns, in the range of 7% to 8%, during the (-20,+20) announcement window. The increase in both price and abnormal trading volume of target shares begins one to 10 days prior to the 13D’s filing. We find that the positive returns at announcement are not reversed over time, as there is no evidence of a negative abnormal drift during the 1-year period subsequent to the announcement.

The thrust of the paper is that when an activist fund files a becoming a substantial holder notice (Australian equivalent) it results in large positive average abnormal returns, in the range of 7% to 8%, during the (-20,+20) announcement window. So:

- The New Senior Lenders have bought debt (most at less than or equal to 25 cents in the dollar) rather than become substantial beneficial holders of SGH.

- From the announcement on 28/12/16 (http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20161228/pdf/43f0mw20y0r4n4.pdf) where the company first used the term recapitalisation (possible debt for equity) the share price did not experience 7% to 8% abnormal returns because of this admission.

- There has however been a negative abnormal drift in the 4+ month period subsequent to the announcement.

From page 42 we can see that 'Equity issuance, restructure debt, recapitalization' only accounts for 6.1% of the sample which, in combination with the above, makes your reference to this paper completely erroneous. You're essentially trying to compare lawyers and astronauts and completely failing in your attempt to do so.

2) Your recent attempt to suggest that 5 million shorts may have closed.

So as Fishinick has already pointed out it is quite clear that they are back. It would have been completely obvious to you just by looking at the volumes on 12/04/17 that 5 million shorts could not have closed on this day. If you were more thorough with your research you would have come across http://www.shortman.com.au/credits where it states:

Data on this site is sourced from ASIC, ASX and other third party data providers. The ASIC data is reliant on accurate report submissions by individual sellers. While ASIC monitors the compliance of reporting, there can be no guarantee as to the accuracy of these individual reports.

The reality is that if you actually cared about the 'substance' of what you post you would have asked the mods to remove that post. You don't and you won't.

I think it is quite clear from your posts that you have absolutely no shame whatsoever and if you also cared about honesty you would point your fellow shareholders in the right direction rather than to some obtuse fantasia. You wouldn't bring up 5 million shorts closing when they haven't and you wouldn't point to research papers that have absolutely no relevance to the situation that SGH finds itself in. But you do and that speaks volumes as to your character and I think by now most on the forum can see that very clearly indeed.