That is what SBB has stated in their docs. The retail stores are run by third parties. There is no franchise in the strict sense as defined in the laws here.
Grant Thornton knows that. The legal advisers very well know this. So why arent somebody saying, hey guys, you cannot call them franchises, because that would be confusing?
The latest operational update mentions "authorised retail stores" then in the next sentence, reverts to franchises. I can accept the possibility that there are third party operators running the stores, but then it is hard to ignore the possibilities that some of these operators could be related parties.
For the FY, I would be scouring the notes for lease obligations. If they have company owned stores, especially on standalone rather than department stores concession, they will have leasing obligations. If this is missing, I will be running as fast away as I could.
Lastly, SBB knows full well the market's concern about the low interest rate on their cash balance. There is indirect evidence here that shareholders told directors this exact concern on multiple occasions. The fact that they deliberately chose not to address this issue in their latest operations update should be warning serious alarm bells. It is not difficult to clarify and explain, and it is not a trade secret.
DYOR. All care no responsibility.
SBB Price at posting:
6.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
