@hottuna,
You are to be commended for your nuggety ferreting around and looking for dangerous flaws in business models, and for then alerting people to them.
To the extent that there is excessive spruiking and over-promoting of stocks without any well-founded countervailing arguments supported by fact-based research, you are providing a valuable public service for free.
The part of your post that sticks in my craw is that the stockbroker tells its clients to buy the share with a Target Price of $3.38 (accurate to 2 decimal places, no less, connoting some sort of analytical precision, presumably).
But when the broker's advice is proven to be inordinately inept, it then blames to company for it, citing "apparent lack of transparency" as the reason why the broking analyst got it so ludicrously wrong.
Surely the analysis that resulted in the target price that was generated should have factored in the "lack of transparency"?
And then, after this unbridled professional incompetence, the broker simply washes his hands of the entire sorry saga, dismissively brushes it all under the carpet and moves onto generate more "Target Prices" on the next big thing which gets peddled to poor, unwitting investors.
It's a heinous profession.
Imagine if a doctor made such bad mistakes in their diagnosis of a health condition, or a lawyer dispensed such bad legal advice.
And then, when the adverse consequences of their malpractice were brought to their respective attention, they simply said, "Well, hard luck. I'm simply not dealing with that situation any longer; I'm moving onto the next patient/case."
Like I said, stockbroking is a contemptible profession.
