Comments on: A 211-page report? What does Babcock & Brown have to hide? http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/04/21/a-211-page-report-what-does-babcock-brown-have-to-hide/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:22:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: anon http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/04/21/a-211-page-report-what-does-babcock-brown-have-to-hide/#comment-13874 anon Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-13874 Classic Adam Schwab! We are continually subjected to his ill informed, sensationalist, join the missing dots writing. Perhaps I can suggest some proper investigative journalism rather than desktop reviews of annual reports / press releases in order to decide which scaremongering message can be put into an eye catching headline. This is not why we subscribe to Crikey, give me Mayne any day. Classic Adam Schwab! We are continually subjected to his ill informed, sensationalist, join the missing dots writing. Perhaps I can suggest some proper investigative journalism rather than desktop reviews of annual reports / press releases in order to decide which scaremongering message can be put into an eye catching headline. This is not why we subscribe to Crikey, give me Mayne any day.

]]> By: Curious http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/04/21/a-211-page-report-what-does-babcock-brown-have-to-hide/#comment-13875 Curious Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-13875 One thing that should be mentioned is that whilst the operating cash flow was some $500m in red, this did NOT include 766.099m on the sale of assets. If this was added then clearly the cashflow would be in the black. One thing that should be mentioned is that whilst the operating cash flow was some $500m in red, this did NOT include 766.099m on the sale of assets. If this was added then clearly the cashflow would be in the black.

]]> By: Adam Schwab http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/04/21/a-211-page-report-what-does-babcock-brown-have-to-hide/#comment-13876 Adam Schwab Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-13876 Agree with you on one point "Anon" - I too would prefer Stephen Mayne. However, your criticism may be more telling if you were to cite some examples or perhaps even provide your own name. As for my ill-informed, sensationalist writing, were you referring to the criticism of ABC Learning when it was $8.00 (now $1.36)? Or the citing of API's follies and poor management back when it was trading at $2.00 (now $1.26) or noting the market seemed high at 6400 (now 5600) last year? Or was it the article noting that UKL seemed to be outstripping its fundamentals when it was 75 cents (now 29 cents)? Or was it the criticism of Austock when it was trading at $1.70 only a few months ago (now 95 cents)? Perhaps it may have been the article condemning Run Corp when it was trading at around 80 cents, now trading at around 5.4 cents? In fact, had you traded the companies which were noted in those ill-informed articles, you would probably have out-performed every fund on the planet. Agree with you on one point “Anon” - I too would prefer Stephen Mayne.

However, your criticism may be more telling if you were to cite some examples or perhaps even provide your own name.

As for my ill-informed, sensationalist writing, were you referring to the criticism of ABC Learning when it was $8.00 (now $1.36)? Or the citing of API’s follies and poor management back when it was trading at $2.00 (now $1.26) or noting the market seemed high at 6400 (now 5600) last year? Or was it the article noting that UKL seemed to be outstripping its fundamentals when it was 75 cents (now 29 cents)? Or was it the criticism of Austock when it was trading at $1.70 only a few months ago (now 95 cents)?

Perhaps it may have been the article condemning Run Corp when it was trading at around 80 cents, now trading at around 5.4 cents?

In fact, had you traded the companies which were noted in those ill-informed articles, you would probably have out-performed every fund on the planet.

]]>