Thanks for the invite to respond.
I actually have a reasonable understanding of the law (so work it out as to how that might be the case) and the chat about legal stuff doesn’t concern me one iota. Not one iota! Made me chuckle - always does!
I have read this stuff about someone called Neil representing QBL on HC. I thought the language used in that post was schmaltzy and designed to garner support. It appears to have been successful.
I also noted his line about the Corporations Act 2001 and the fact that he was intending on being compliant with the Act. Good for you Neil but I’m not sure precisely what you are referring to with respect to that declaration? However, it seems to be what people say when they want to sound legal without actually being appropriately qualified.
I would suggest a quick read of s. 77(1) as a starting point.
My first questions to Neil are;
Firstly, what is the scope of your role as QBL’s liaison representative within Hotcopper?
Secondly, are you authorised (as an officer of QBL) to answer any and all questions asked of you regarding QBL’s operations and if not what are the limitations that are imposed on you?
Thirdly, can the answers you provide be relied upon you the reasonable person as being those of a person qualified to provide such answers?
Further, I am also not sure where this places Hotcopper with respect to their liability given that they now have knowledge of the fact that this Neil person has declared his interest as a paid promoter of QBL as well as an intention to post on QBL.
To my mind this represents a risk to HC with no real reward. As to the construction, purpose and application of the ASIC regulations (Reg 162) that govern IDS (internet discussion sites) conduct. This, it is my considered view, ought to be foremost in the minds of HC representatives.
It is, in my opinion, and not beyond the realms of possibility that, at some future point in time, for an investor who has experienced a loss to claim that they relied upon the information and answers to questions given by Neil on HC (as a QBL rep) to make an investment decision. This is where it could become problematic for HC. It is my view that they ought to re-examine their tacit approval and, it might be easily argued, the encouragement of this circumstance. Anyway, that is their call.
And as a matter of prudence all QBL posters must now assume that Neil’s posts - irrespective of intent stated or otherwise - must contain a significant degree of bias.
You simply cannot serve two masters.
I am not convinced that a paid representative can provide answers to questions that might be fairly regarded as being independent.
It is certainly an interesting development - like some other posters I have not seen this before on HC.
However,
@Madmin ‘s earlier post made some fair points regarding the treatment of contrarian posters and some typical cautionary notes re Neil’s posting as a paid QBL representative. Nonetheless, if answers to questions are not free from bias or not independently verified then the entire event becomes pointless.
Further, are we to assume that investors who are not members of HC might suffer some disadvantage because HC members have the opportunity to be more informed than those who are not members? If the reply is that the nature of the answers given by Neil on HC will not advantage HC members over others - then the next question is; what is the point? There is a reason why announcements of public companies are distributed via regulated system.
It is also, in my view, something more than curious that the company felt the need to appoint a paid liaison person specifically assigned to quell legitimate lines of inquiry into their operations. And that this should apply to one IDS. They (QBL) are a public company and assigning employees to respond to random questions on one IDS is not, in my view, a reasonable commercial activity one might associate with the workings of a fledgling company. Again, that is their call but all holders ought to maintain a proportionate level scepticism in my view.
Fact is - you silence contrarian views by achieving positive commercial outcomes as opposed to coordinated PR or Q&A campaigns. Why would they waste scarce resources on this type of activity? Maybe they do believe that HC chat affects their share price. I would not think that this has anything to do with corporate altruism!
So when the next CR turns up will they say that they intend to use some of the funds to pay a HC random question answer person?
While the cheer squad might feel as though they have gained an invaluable resource and one which might provide them with succour and comfort - fact is they will need to apply extra vigilance - or they should!
Just my view and this does not constitute advice in any way whatsoever.
