Ann: Response to Media Speculation, page-72

I actually don't think that you really understand what Glaucus did. They shone a light on the operational elements of how the BLA cashflows work. That is what has caused the share price collapse - on that Glaucus are correct.

That light effectively stated that BLA were not profitable without the uncollected performance fees, notwithstanding the fact that those performance fees were arguably fraudulent.

In the first half of the year, the BLA accounts showed a 10 million profit, however what they also showed was that there was equal / greater increase in the non-current assets, those non-current assets are the (we assume) the performance fees from the funds. So while BLA on paper made $10 million for 6 months on paper, actually under the new accounting standards they are required to adopt from 1 July 2018, they made ZERO.

Literally nobody who was investing realized. Even to this day, after Glaucus shone a light on this and BLA have acknowledged this, people are still on this forum, saying, No, No, No, they are profitable. Kim in one of his recent market updates even discloses that they were spending more money running the company than they were collecting in recurring management fees. This was BEFORE people started to realize that there were systematic problems with the valuation of the assets in the funds. Read slide 6 (page 11) of the market update on the 12th June 2018. They were estimating that for the 6 Months from 1 Jan 18 to 30 June 18, there was a 20 million negative net operating cashflows. Now yes, some of that was due to the restructure, sure. But thats a massive negative cashflow from operations. Operations should be a positive cashflow.... just saying.

I'll give Kim some credit, he and the board have realized that they have to chase bigger deals. $30 million to $50 million opportunities, not $5 & $10 million (these smaller opportunities are too cost intensive to manage) which is whats churning up the cash. At that level, you have to commit to something first, provide the $ as a loan and then raise capital, at the end of the capital raising process, if you haven't committed all the funds to new investors your loan becomes equity or you throw some extra lending in to cover it - if the fund documents allow.

After the annual report in August, we will know more in theory. If, and I mean If, they can get their operating costs down and recover some of those funds seeded into the investments, then this company may be worth $2.00. But at the same time, they could run out of money and wind up, $20 million negative operating cashflows for 6 months is pretty brutal threshold to overcome.

What I do know is that they will need more $ very soon, this financial year. That capital raising is going to be brutal to shareholders, cause I recon they will need another $100 Million, that will be a 50% dilution.

Furthermore we are a long, long, long time before this company punches out any dividends.