If you are a Johnny come lately who has only just started...

If you are a Johnny come lately who has only just started posting on BIG's forum and havent actually read majority of the recent company announcements please dont waste your or mine time posting on this thread as you dont offer an value with your uneducated comments. There have been few non-bullish posters who have gone against the grain of the majority recently who have added value by having a differing opinion who have discussed the stock in a civil manner and respectfully which is welcomed, Alannnnn and Davmarc are two that come to mind, apologies to others that I have not mentioned.

No doubt the past week of trading has not been pretty and many holders are now sitting on significantly less profitable paper positions (I bought in at $0.20 and still hold free-carried position with profit taken) or paper losses or even have sold and realised losses, for those people I am sorry for you however we all have our own trading rules and goals and they will differ across the board.

I still remain positive about the company and think it is a BUY. However there are probably a few issues that need clarification.

AFR ARTICLE - most of the information in this article was already public knowledge. I think the headline of 'BIG's cash flow secret revealed' is alarmist and bordering on click-bait, well done editor well done. The dictionary definition of secret is 'not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others'. The fact BIG used a 3rd party finance company to accelerate growth and put cash in the bank for a start up seems a pretty sensible and logical business decision to avoid going down the path of Capital Raisings with shareholders, which more often than not are received poorly by the investing community. I have looked on the BIG website and could not find any link to being able to finance the product. If this was a product available to customers I'm not sure why they would not offer that feature as prospective customers may like that option and go ahead if paying up front was a barrier to take advantage of the product. I would assume that the sales staff would then offer this feature to customers during their pitch, I have previously worked in a telesales job and we didnt advertise finance on our ads or website and it was a closing tool for us to use, which was very effective. So is this really a secret? I doubt it, every customer that has used the finance option probably didnt have to sign a clause stating 'if anyone asks you if this was financed you have to say no'. Recent reports have also stated the customer base is growing organically through referrals, if shop 'A' which is a customer used the finance option and recommends it to shop 'B' they would probably mention the possibility of financing it not to put a potential strain on business cash flows.

3RD PARTY FINANCE - I am shocked at the lack of intelligence of some of the posts with people questioning if BIG is responsible for default / non-paying customers. Its been mentioned previously but for any that have missed it or need to be told multiple times before you understand something, its the 3rd party finance company that is responsible for collecting their accounts, its has absolutely nothing to do with BIG at all except for the fact they are providing the service that the customer is financing. BIG deals with the customer for their service package. Finance company pays BIG for the customers service package. Customer repays finance company for their service package.

It should also be worth noting that for a customer to actually get finance they have to go through the appropriate credit checks and prove they can repay the debt (most of you probably already know this but it seems with the amount of 'novice' statements over the past few days better to give more info than less). Bad debts in credit will always exist however since the GFC in which sub-prime lending was key aspect, getting finance in Australia since then has tightened up significantly and lending institutions are no where near as loose with their lending as they once were.

In relation to the shares for services for the finance company, the majority were bought above market price years ago, $0.20 when price was $016. There is a much smaller batch that seemed to be given to the finance company at a discount. At face value it may appear a little odd, however maybe when they signed the agreement with this company this was agreed that they would get x amount of shares at one time and x amount of shares at another...at the time the share price would have been well under $0.50...if management knew the price would go to almost $5 in less than a year they may not have put this clause in the contract. Without financing the growth rates may not have been what they were. The two businesses have complimented each other.

I have been a strong supporter of management however mentioning the finance aspect of customers probably should have been mentioned in update reports previously for greater transparency to the market, to date I think they have been excellent communicators.

MANAGEMENT - Richard Evans or Richard Evertz...que the 'Johnny come lately's', again, as previously mentioned this was actually mentioned in the IPO and has been discussed on previous threads on this forum multiple times, however thank you for clicking on a hyperlink in an alarmist article and bringing 'new' news to our attention, I'm not sure what we would do without you.

Which brings me to the title of this thread, what should management do next if anything, these are the few possibilities I foresee and constructive discussion regarding this matter would be appreciated.

1 - make an ASX announcement responding to the AFR article and go into extreme detail and rebut all the points bought up in the article they have a sense of 'grey' associated with them. Busy Bean (sorry for your paper loss by the way, hold tight, I'm sure it will be ok) the other day before the AFR article suggested management make an announcement saying 'everything is ok' for reassurance as price was under some pressure. I mentioned then that I would prefer management not to respond to volatile market conditions as they are out of their control and would not set a good precedence for market volatility in the future. In this case I do believe some form of response would be beneficial, good bad or indifferent and this is because the AFR article seems to have been the catalyst for nearly 10% of the registry changing hands in one day and a 40% price drop in one day. We are hurting and I am sure they have all had much bigger paper losses than anyone on this forum.

2 - not respond at all unless an ASX speeding ticket is issued, it would say we dont respond to media articles, we have disclosed what we need to disclose and are playing by the rules. This may prompt more articles from media agencies, negative or positive.

I feel the majority of shareholders would like some clarity on these topics that have been raised in the AFR article and corresponding share price movement. I would suspect they are going to have a pretty busy weekend discussing all the variables of what to do and suspect some form of announcement prior to open on Monday may eventuate.

Really long rant over, responding and correcting all the posts from the 'johnny come lately's' that are incorrect would have taken longer.

Think BIG BIG BIG