Good afternoon all.
It's fair to say that the AFR and the journalist in question have plenty of form when it comes to reporting on all matters ISX. Only they know the true reasons for that and it's pointless trying to second guess them. Possibly the other punter from the Nine Publishing emporium is away otherwise The Age and the SMH would round out the coven. It's not enough to target ISX so now they're having a lash at LHC. It's 'a matter for them' so the saying goes. So what if LHC are not talking to a journalist. Why should they? They're certainly not going to get fairly reported in any article.
The news doesn't concern me even assuming it is true. I'd me more concerned if LHC did not mark down. They have to cover their position and are simply (and reasonably) erring on the side of caution. No doubt LHC have appropriate risk management policies and procedures to ensure a degree of liquidity to meet their redemption obligations and other liabilities, if and when they arise, and they're following those.
@smoke123, I don't think LHC has a punitive agenda here. I just think they're being prudent and you can't blame them when ISX have been sidelined for well over 4 months amidst a flurry of speculation, innuendo, and rumour in circumstances where most people now are none the wiser than they were in early October 2019. Coupled with that is the high likelihood that they'd have most (if not all) clients with a vested interest contacting them asking what the position is especially when they see inflammatory articles, such as these, surfacing from the usual suspects with monotonous regularity.
Unless I'm missing something, let's not forget that this was done by 31 Dec - Mr Aston tells us that. The decision to mark down was made by then, that is, when ISX had commenced proceedings, draft ASX findings hadn't been seen, a Defence was yet to be filed (and still hasn't), albeit it wasn't due at that time, and ISX had been sidelined for nearly 3 months. Why has it taken the AFR super-sleuth over 6 weeks to even get this LHC story into print? If this is the best that can be cobbled together, then in my view it's another straw-clutching exercise. I'm sure LHC had sighted the OM report by the time they wrote to their investors on 30 Sept expressing the view that they
"remain comfortable with our holding in the business". Let's not forget that it was the AFR who wrote on 12 Sept, "(ISX)
has been backed by some of the smartest hedge funds in Australia, including Marcus Hughes and Stephen Aboud's LHC Capital, which was the best long-short strategy over 2018-19, and Regal Funds Management". High praise from the AFR at that time and no doubt deservedly so.
Hopefully the particulars were provided by ISX last Friday and now ASX can either get on with it and file a Defence and get things moving (if they've decided they wish to contest it) or resolve the matter. What nobody wants is them fronting up at the next Court date on 13 March and playing the 'we're waiting to hear from ASIC' card. ASIC aren't a party to these proceedings and ISX aren't seeking a remedy against them, so if that submission is made nobody would blame the Judge if Her Honour took two steps down the pitch and lofted them over the boundary, not that it would worry ASX to have it stood over for a further date. If the particulars have been provided, put them to the sword if they use ASIC as an excuse re: failure to file a Defence. Get a proper officer from ASX in Court. What is it you're waiting on and why do you require that to instruct your solicitors to file a Defence. Let them answer the questions for a change.
All the best.
