TrakM8, net cash, Paul Scott & Lies - Part 4 of Series

Comments

1. ---

   Paul Scott

   22 January 2016, 04:27

   Tom,

   It’s a recurring mistake that nobody spotted, until I pointed it out in my SCVR dated 23 Nov 2015, where I said;

   “Net cash – in the highlights section, the company says it has £1,423k net cash. This seems to ignore £583k borrowings in current liabilities, and £2,943k borrowings in long term creditors. So I make it net debt of £2.1m. So an apparent anomaly there. – See more at: http://www.stockopedia.com/content/small-cap-value-report-23-nov-2015-nxr-trak-plus-bon-112746/#sthash.TH461hTj.dpuf”

   I agree with you that the company should have corrected the RNS, and re-issued it. So this is a valid criticism that you make. However, for you to then start screaming that “it’s a lie, it’s a lie!” seems bonkers to me. In the absence of proof of bad intent, then mistakes are generally considered to be mistakes, not a lie. A lie is by definition a deliberate misstatement of the facts. A mistake is an accidental misstatement of the facts. This situation is clearly a mistake in my opinion. I have no idea why anyone would suspect, let alone be adamant, that a mismatch between the narrative and the figures would be anything other than a mistake. For sound companies, I personally give the benefit of the doubt. You don’t. Fine – let’s agree to disagree on the interpretation of this mistake in the results statements.

   The company & its advisers SHOULD feel embarrassed about this, because it’s a silly cock-up. So I’m not defending them as such, but I am questioning the way you have framed this as being a huge issue, when it’s not.

   I know that a company is a separate legal entity. However, I view companies as a collection of people, so that’s why I refer to it in the plural. Companies do not have voice boxes, human beings do. Anyway, that’s irrelevant.

   So far you’re really clutching at straws here Tom. But kudos to you for being prepared to engage in a vigorous debate on the subject, and publishing my responses – good to see free speech in action.

   Regards, Paul.

2. ---

   oliver

   22 January 2016, 04:39

   Isn’t this just a disagreement about semantics? Look up the word “lie” in the Collins dictionary and you find this:
   A lie is an untrue or deceptive statement deliberately used to mislead or something that is deliberately intended to deceive.

   So on that basis saying something is a “deliberate lie” is a tautology. What Paul is saying is that you have accused TRAK of deliberately intending to deceive whereas you have no evidence to substantiate that assertion. What you may be able to say is that they have made a false statement but you cannot say they have lied.

3. ---

   Duck and Dive

   22 January 2016, 10:08

   While it’s best to assume that all AIM directors are liars until proven otherwise, they tend not to tell blatant lies which can be found out in 5 seconds by a novice BBM. So it’s hard to believe that this so-obvious “lie” could have been intentional. It was certainly inept. And the fact that it has been repeated makes it so inept that I wouldn’t want to risk a cent of my son’s inheritance on the idiots who are running this company.

   I haven’t checked but I assume that the auditors picked up on the error and put it right in the FY results, otherwise Uncle Tom would have paraded those too. But what kind of auditor doesn’t point out these errors to management?

   Anyway, whether they are liars or buffoons, TRAK obviously should be avoided like the plague.