Scorchin, my apologies for not reading all your past posts, just...

Scorchin, my apologies for not reading all your past posts, just the recent ones, when concluding you didn't provide evidence. (OK, that was sarcasm. Sorry). But your latests posts, although somewhat high on the emotion meter, have valuable arguments. These include the foreign debt (forex risk, unless hedged), underwritten DRP (although many firms do it, not nice). But GEM has more serious risks, notably higher costs due to gov't legislation. Also, several wayward comments (see below).

1. Nominees -- most of us here understand what this means. But many (probably most) nominees (clients) delegate trading to UBS brokers, particularly through structured products. see #3 below.

2. UBS's highly intelligent client base? Some "sophisticated nominees" such as Swatch, Japanese universities, Puerto Rican retirees, Leipiz Water, UK gov't (Northen Rock fiasco), and others currently and in 2014 have high profile lawsuits against UBS. In Nov14, the UK courts concluded that UBS's actions were "a case study in how not to conduct investment banking in an honest and fair way". UBS has mostly excellent people with high integrity. But overall it has wandered over the line more than the norm. UBS (and its clients) also had among the highest losses from the GFC.

3. UBS is GEM's broker, so its short activity after the cap raising is a signal to short? Wrong, for two reasons:
4a -- UBS held large short holdings in july 2014 (likely earlier), well before it did GEM's cap raising.
4.b -- UBS is one of eight brokers with a "buy" rating on GEM. It recently stated that the market is "taking a short-term negative view about the company's ability to consolidate the child care industry" (Jan15) and that "the present share price simply is unjustifiably low" (Dec14 -- when GEM was above $4).
In short (no pun), UBS is shorting because it can make short term bucks; It's shorting does not signal that the stock is poor value.

4. GEM's acquisitions are more than 4x? Yes, for Sterling, and GEM's ceiling is around 5x EBITDA. But for example, the latest acquisition last month states: "The purchase price is 4 times anticipated EBIT for the 12 months post settlement."

5.
The SMH article (12 March) you cited yesterday (12 March) is a rewrite of the (Un)intelligent investor article that began this thread in late February. Same mistakes in that article that I and others rebuked (mgt doesn't sell to investors; GEM isn't priced at 30x earnings, etc).

6. I don't subscribe to Motley (I assume that was another emotional moment of flaming, not a thoughtful compliment, right?)