SGH, page-90

All very good Fish. Agree with what you say.

A problem though - it is all after the horse has bolted. With hindsight!

It is very easy to piece together a story to fit the facts - afterwards.

I certainly agree it was over leveraged. I've posted about that from the beginning and the board acknowledged it was overleveraged in the AGM 2015 - believing it was a temporary situation that would be cleared after a backlog of WIP converted.

So we get into definitions. A definition of speculative that I have adopted is :

1. a company that has not generated revenue but is on a promise (think start-up/resources)
2. a short-term 'gamble' on a market move.

I don't see SGH as either at April 2015. It generated profit, was established and on the verge of ASX100.

SGH was certainly high risk (not speculative) due to debt to equity and taking on another revenue generating company that doubled SGH size. Leverage is great for those inclined to take that risk when it pays off - it magnifies gains (and losses).

I just don't buy into the post crash analysis. Say what you will but banks and analyst firms simply don't totally ignore the things that you imply were obvious.

You are good Fish but really, are you better than a multitude of professionals from accountancy firms, banks and brokerage houses?