@benny211167Maybe so, but lets put this into perspective.4+...

@benny211167

Maybe so, but lets put this into perspective.

4+ years ago the company was shot in the head because the CEO told a few porkies. Obviously not gold class disclosure and regrettable. But not atypical for CEO's these days unfortunately.

Typically it doesn't mean screwing thousands of shareholders, when the issue of most importance, the awarding of performance shares, was found to be legit. So despite the company offering to embargo those shares until a finding could be established, the regulator and MO decided to shaft shareholders instead.

The incident has culminated in years of personal abuse from people with no obvious reasons other than some pathological need to claim moral righteousness, accompanied by 'Chicken Little' hysteria about the demise of the company. A completely disproportionate response from a group of clowns with personal need or other nefarious concocted agenda's.

Fast forward to today, and whilst the court ruled against the CEO and we await the penalty, the company has brushed off the hysteria, the over zealous regulatory response and very small picture players to deliver an excellent result, with an outstanding trajectory.

Fintech revolution vs Marbles. We know who the second hand marble players are.

A vastly stark contrast despite the issue you raise and a solution, given the potential will be found. Lets not wet out beds and continue to stay strong.