Shut, your conclusion about dick smith mgt is only partly...

Shut, your conclusion about dick smith mgt is only partly correct, and probably mostly wrong. Also, from ipo to receivership was only two years, much less than some time ago. (Anchorage apparently sold off its remaining shares even more recently, about 15 months ago I hear.)

Forager's excellent article (written two months ago) points to issues with anchorage's actions. Anchorage may have acted completely legally, but several concerns have been raised this week. Even if legal, some or most blame moves to anchorage and away from ds mgt.

This week, sources suggest anchorage may have violated accounting rules by deliberately marking down assets beyond fair value. Also, during the ds ipo the deficient inventory risk may have been obscured (certainly missed by several instos, and they look closely). It was deficient inventory that required ds to take on debt, along with the cost of opening new stores that anchorage also initiated.

As one biz news commentator wrote this weekend, anchorage may have much more trouble launching its next ipo in OZ.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to observe what anchorage does to affinity. I posted (in nov15?) how gem may benefit from the anchorage takeover of affinity in a few ways. Gem owned 20% of affinity at 80c so it gets cap gains from that deal. But bigger benefits may yet occur...or not.