Any chance poor old Joe is on extended sick or stress leave??...

Any chance poor old Joe is on extended sick or stress leave?? Maybe he had his fingers badly burnt on the keyboard rattling out those thinly veiled sell recs?? Noticed the tone of AFR articles since has changed? No opinions.
I see Westpac Broking publish Liquidity ratios on its research page. CTD with a Current Ratio of 1.3 and Quick ratio of 1.27 comes up trumps. Yep, despite supposed delay of payments to hide cash issues CTD actually does have oddles of cash. And how else could you have paid down a material amount of debt and pass stringent Bank tests to obtain a sizeable loan facility. In fact as far as the Quick ratio goes CTD beats FLT hands down.
Any Year 11 Accounting student knows that if you delay payments because you have little cash or hide cash issues it all comes out in lousy liquidity ratios. Simply because the delayed payments are accrued and added to Current liabilities. If you have little in the way of cash or assets on the balance sheet that can be quickly converted to cash then you will not be able to pay your debts as they fall due. CTD has plenty of cash and cash convertible assets so has no issues. Question: Ought the Shorters been aware of that?
Once again I dusted off my old Year 11 Accounting Text book and did a thorough check for the test mentioned in the AFR article on the 21St August titled "Corporate Travel 'very very' conservative on 2019-20 guidance". It was called the 'sniff test' and apparently must replace old fashioned financial statement analysis. There was no mention of it in the text book. It must be real and effective otherwise no one in their right mind would put it out there in the public forum for people to base financial decisions on. Wonder whether CTD will ask ASIC for some clarification regards that new sniff test because something smells and its likely not CTD.
CTD Announcement dated 8th November 2018 covered the major issues raised. Under the heading Corporate travel sector accounting disclosures - Cash flow and working capital. The following was said as part of a detailed response "For VGI to omit the movement in payables reflects either VGI’s lack of understanding of the corporate travel business model or is designed to be deliberately misleading." Of course you need to read the whole Announcement to get full context. The analysis was completed by EY professionally qualified staff. They more than likely had studied Accounting a little further than Year 11. Cash flow is not an island and is related to the other Financial statements. The accounting principals used are just different but can be easily reconciled.
Rattling on about my Year 11 Accounting achievement (hope it does not come across as bragging) any student would know that Cash conversion ups and downs period to period due to timing issue is no big deal if you cross check it to liquidity ratios. As long as it averages out around 100% over time its fine. Seems overblown by those who don't seem understand basic Accounting.
The Announcement also covers Revenue Recognition. I wonder whether VGI and Taylor Collision bothered to read it? I wonder whether they had an obligation to?
I wonder whether they had an obligation to take the explanations into account before making further statements and disclose that they existed? I wonder whether they knew they could perform simple liquidity ratio tests and if so whether they had an obligation to disclose the results? I wonder whether once being aware of the explanations they had an obligation to go into print with a detailed 'debunking' of the Announcement? I wonder whether the ASIC ticket to give advice includes 'throw away lines' to the media for public consumption.The list goes on and on. All this in the context of possible financial advantage.
I wonder whether CTD will bother to take all this and more to ASIC? If so ASIC will consider the above questions and a lot more. Only ASIC can answer those questions and then only after very careful consideration.
Just a note that in civil actions such as class actions only the balance of probability is required - which is why they are so popular. This contrasts with DPP referrals which require without reasonable doubt. I am not suggesting that either will occur.
One thing for sure there will be a curtailing of shorter activities by tightened legislation. That will include media exposure.
Could not help but laugh. The AFR article on 24th August 2019 titled :"Cash conversion emerges as a Corporate Travel flashpoint". The article did present a pretty well balanced view but ended with " The debate can be settled with fuller disclosure". Ahhhhhh, authors Jonathan and Vesna didn't you read the 8th November 2018 CTD announcement? Or maybe the Shorter failed to 'disclose' its existence to you both? Disclosure is a wonderful thing, isn't it - when it suits!
For your information as at 30th June 2019 CTD's debt to equity ratio with borrowings of $39.1 million was around a very tiny 7%. If they acquire using debt it will be much higher next year. The operating cash conversion rate for the year, which is net operating cashflows excluding interest, finance costs and income tax paid divided by EBITDA is approximately 113%. Year to year comparisons vary from half to half comparisons but the same principles apply.
In the meantime no one at all saw Hong Kong coming which has caused no end of concern in the market, especially CTD's share price.