- Joined
- 25 March 2009
- Posts
- 65
- Reactions
- 0
i am very thank full for this . we have the fuel risk info that was resently put out but your info was spot on . we had not got to the 2006 as opposed to 2008 dats .many thanks
I'm still responding to Jim's request for comment on flaws in the PDS. I just didn't quite summarise where I was going with that line of argument in my previous posts. Trying to bring that together:
1. Briscon acknowledge in the PDS that traffic volume is a key risk of the project;
2. Briscon acknowledge (five times) in the PDS that fuel prices can affect traffic volume, including stating;
3. When preparing the critical traffic forecasts, Briscon (through Arup) used data from 2005/2006 when data for 2007/2008 was readily available. It wasn't free, but anyone could get it. This failure to use the up to date data is highly significant because:
i am very thank full for this . we have the fuel risk info that was resently put out but your info was spot on . we had not got to the 2006 as opposed to 2008 dats .many thanks
a. Fuel prices had increased dramatically over the period of time covered by the new data. Though it was raised as a significant risk in the PDS and up to date data was available, the effect of higher fuel prices was ignored in the vital traffic forecasts and financial statements provided in the PDS;
b. Any change to the underlying assumptions can have significant material effect on Brisconnections financial condition. This information should be provided to shareholders.
Actually, on a close read you can see a complete disconnect between the PDS and Arup on fuel prices generally. It is obvious that the person(s) who wrote the Arup report (available in Section 10 of the PDS) never read Section 6 (Risks), and vice versa. Section 6 freely talks of the risks of higher fuel prices, but the Arup report in Section 10 shows that fuel prices played absolutely no part in the development of the traffic forecast. Brisconnections acknowledge fuel prices as a risk, but didn't even consider it in preparing their forecasts.
It could be worth getting your lawyers to have a close look at section 10 - the Arup report:
Given that we know they used data more than two years old when current data was available, that could be a bit of a fly in the ointment for them.
Another thing about the availability of the 2008 data: While it could cost up to $60k for a large company, the cost for a consulting firm like Arup would be a fraction of that. Google has also told me that anyone can access the report for free in the National Library in Canberra. It would only have cost a couple of hundred dollars in airfares to send someone to Canberra for the day to get what they needed. I haven't even bothered to check the various state libraries.
So Jim - how about some feeback. Had your lawyers found these issues?
Jim,
I refer to your proposed unitholder meeting.
You are in control of approximately 15% and JAB_Charity may have 5% (yet to be confirmed). With Bolton/Williams (~20% holding) you are beating the drums of war (publically at least).
You obviously need their support so how do you hope to get your resolutions up at any such meeting ?
goodluck. you already got some mum and dads off the hook now lets hope u can get them some compensation.
I started off feeling sorry for the "mum and dad" investors who unknowingly bought in at 0.1 cents and with an investment of just $500 incurred a debt of $1 million.
Now, if this class of "mum and Dad" investors have escaped possible bankruptcy by off loading their shares to Bolton, Barrow or Byrnes, then good luck to them.
However, I dont see how this group should be rewarded for their incompetance by way of a compensation payout.
What exactly would they receive compensation for though? I agree, no compensation is warranted.
Ah, but you dont get compensated for pain and suffering. Just for actual loss or potential loss. You dont suppose they could get it because they had to give away their shares?There was a lot of "pain and suffering" involved initially when they realised what they had done.
I've re-read the links I posted, and think I need to clarify. Firtsy, I might have quoted Briscon out of context. Secondly, I can't absolutely prove from the PDS or the Briscon response to the criticisms that they used the 2006 Transport facts report instead of the 2008 report.i am very thank full for this . we have the fuel risk info that was resently put out but your info was spot on . we had not got to the 2006 as opposed to 2008 dats .many thanks
Jim and David:
Can you unequivocally and categorically assure all the people from whom you have accepted/bought BCSCA shares that under no circumstances will they still be liable for either of the two $1 payments owing?
With thanks.
David seems to have disappeared. However, Jim, you have posted since the above entries so presumably have read requests from drsmith and myself.I too am curious about the above.
....mum and dads have been relieved of the burden of debt and jim/BTRL/New Hampton will now TRY to make a profit. ....
I gave reasons why the IPO document for Brisconnections was misleading back in February 9, 2009 (AFR). This I consider is of major significance and I am pleased that ASIC now intends to investigate the financial model.
Perhaps I'm unreasonably influenced by the machiavellian twists and turns in this whole situation, but I don't find the post you refer to unequivocal.Julia, I understood Jim answered with this snippet above from one of his recent posts. Click on the blue arrow to read his whole post. If I've misunderstood, I'm sure Jim will correct...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?