Ethical Equities: Why FIG is a (close to) zero, page-3

Not quite sure where to start here.

1) The author does not mention Forager. He is challenging a public investment thesis and the fact it was Forager who wrote it is irrelevant. Any decent investor should want their investment case to be challenged.

2) Uncompetitive pricing is not the main part of the bear case. The real issue is the use of aggressive sales tactics. The pricing simply underscores this since no one who had researched alternatives would buy FIG insurance.

3) The aggressive sales tactics are the reason the author (who suspects he was subjected to them first hand) considers the trail book to be impaired. If a large number of customers have a legal case against FIG then the likelehood is that much of the book is irrecoverable plus there is the potential for compensation to those affected. If so, what is left for investors?

If you didn't pick this up from the original article then I am probably wasting my time. Regardless, I didn't write the piece so perhaps it would be better to comment on ethicalequities.com.au and communicate directly with the author.