asic must query price slump, page-6

Its hard to believe that CLO was not in a position earlier than October 26 to be aware that earnings were likely to be significantly lower given the size of the forecast drop (20-25% over the full year). Given that this is based on an assumption of improved earnings in the second half,it would seem that first half is substantially worse. Surely the company has sufficiently robust financial monitoring systems in place to identify significant variation in assumptions regarding earnings to provide earlier warning.
(Even if such systems were not in place - which in itself would be inexcusable- isn't it a reflection on management that they dont have a basic feel for how their company is travelling; its not that complex: annual revenue is less than $100 million).
Their is an implication in the companies reply to ASIC enquiry that they were aware of the possiblity; the reply seems to suggest that the information was available but the opportunity for the board to deliberate/assess that information hadn't occured earlier, but in any case the information wasn't publically available and therefore no one benefited from it.
I bought CLO back in August for 89 cents a share based on the annual report that indicated a P/E based on 2009/10 results of less then 10 and an order book up 157%. I sold a week later for 82 cents becuase it seemed to me the market response didn't tally with what was presented.In the period since I sold CLO fell a further 2-3% up to October 26 while the overall market went up more than 5%.I recognise mispricing occurs in the market,but this never felt right.
Seems to me
1.there must have been key assumptions underlying earnings projections which were obviously not going to be met and this would have been known much earlier than October 26,
2. Some were aware of this and have profited by that information
3. CLO were aware and chose not to deliberate on the consequences for earnings and therefore have not met their responsiblity of keeping the market informed