Thank you for posting this AFR article GH. A very genuine thank...

Thank you for posting this AFR article GH. A very genuine thank you.

It was a first rate 4C ASX ANN from ISX today- not surprising for many of us who believe in the company, its management, and current and future growth and direction. Plus GS presentation. I did notice an earlier post re the increased outgoings% - explained by one HC poster - as adopted by ISX due to Paterson's advice, that is, the outgoings for the last quarter of 2019 are formula driven - and mightn't be actual (hence outgoings could be overstated and hence the guidance note "cautious").

****
Re 9EC publications, I can't bring myself to view/search read any 9EC publications at present. If I do, I start looking for other clues/other ASX shares and then question AFR, SMH, The Age's and other 9EC publications....to try and uncover the motives behind their malicious, biased and ill-formed reporting and the associations those reporters may have to other 'interested, non-interested parties'.

AFR, was once an esteemed newspaper. Now we know it is the 'pits' and relegated to the likes of the other lowly-ranked tabloids in Australia and the UK. Relegated: assign an inferior rank or position to. AFR have demonstrated how low their standard of journalism has become in recent years. To further reduce their credibility, how many co-authors are required to be listed for producing such substandard, un-researched, unverified articles? - as the content of their articles appears to be cobbled from various social media sites and posts. No proof of attempt at research, or sourcing independent verification, is ever stated within the actual articles.

***
What I have noted in the article listed above - is AFR giving themselves 'an out' - i.e. perhaps AFR are hoping not to be pursued by way of/or for any legal/defamatory action. This section below is almost telling the reader to infer that AFR were 'confused or misled' by the timing of events. Could that be because AFR read and received the OM report which they have claimed they 'sighted' in an earlier AFR online publication.

I am not at all happy with the inference and also they are stating, the quote below, that the performance shares "remained unexplained". The performance shares have been explained.

"The Australian Financial Review has since reported that a number of payments into and out of an iSignthis account at failed Danish bank KAB were flagged as suspicious. The transfers, in June and July 2018, coincided with the timing of a final tranche of the total 336 million performance shares being issued to management and remain unexplained."

****
I am loathe to draw attention to the AFR's co-authored statement but wishing to reiterate my concern to others reading this AFR article, that this malicious OM/AFR inference remains.

***
I look forward to reading almost all the other HC posts from today. Am well behind.

***
Re suspension lifting - noticed a few earlier posts today - we have been fortunate to have our investment and capital protected by the suspension. Imagine what a field day 'others' may have had if the share had not been suspended until now. Like many holders however, I am looking forward to the suspension being lifted given the inordinate 'unfathomable excitement' it causes for many non-holders, shorters and disreputable journalists.

I think it is ASX and ASIC's fault for not seeking halts and suspensions for many ASX listed companies in the past -- and now that they begun to do so--- they have to understand why there is a need for them, ASX and ASIC, to provide more detail on why the halt or suspension has taken place, instead of quoting an ambiguous reference without any additional explanation.