The question remains, why would a so called professional licensed advisor,
Be so careless with easily correctable details by engaging the company?
Act in a way (not providing the opportunity for balance) that is contrary to what had previously been agreed with ASIC?
Release the report after the price had gone parabolic and not in the months before?
Stamp a disclaimer on the release in an attempt to distance themselves from responsibility?
Any professional investor / institution is only ever interested in the facts. The shady side of town however is interested in the exclusion of the balancing facts to create an opaque environment, in a charged and acute speculative scenario at the right time. Such was the case.
The above leaves two probable reasons why.
Incompetence and unfortunate luck (for shareholders and management).
Deliberate obfuscation of the facts to create volatility.
You could forgive them for the former, but sooner or later they need to be held to account for the latter. I've actively engaged a couple of cabinet ministers (with others) over the past two years in an effort bring recognition to the matter and help remedy the potential for dishonest and disingenuous market behaviour.
If that means the business model of some suffers, so be it. Let that be the first step toward reconciling this matter, but not the last.
The companies first focus should be to stabilize, grow and if that unsavory business model remains, extinguish permanently it from a position of strength.
