good on you Khevoc for some clarity.
It has been readily apparent for some time, that there are some posters here whose sole purpose is to undermine investor confidence in Yowie.
Given that HC is anonymous, it is blatantly obvious that some posters declare they are Holders, yet their incessant negative posts is a clear attempt to damage the credibility of Yowie, and attempt to undermine the credibility of the Yowie business plan.
One can note that these particular posts lead with a hand-stroking caress, to try and appear credible, then criticise the Yowie news with purported facts and claims of expert marketing advice. If one is so critical of Yowie actions and marketing, why the hell remain a shareholder??
We have all noted the aggressive marketing moves by Kinder to try and dull the intrusion of Yowie into the Australian market.
Has any here ever contemplated the concept that a parallel move by a industry competitor could be to incessantly slag Yowie on HC ??
Don't laugh, because we can all understand that a sickly SP of Yowie does significant harm to Yowie and all its shareholders.
HC has what about 250,000 members and about 600,000 visits p/m.
HC does have a flow-on effect on SP of companies. Yowie register is mostly comprised of retail s/h, and the biggest s/h have not changed their holdings as per A/R. So it is the retail s/h who seem to be moving the SP. And it would be retail s/h who frequent HC.
To cause Yowie grief via HC would be a very cost effective method for a competitor to sow doubt in the minds of suppliers, retailers and shareholders and potential investors who might read HC.
Yowie is going OK, but the age old adage "if you tell a lie loud enough, often enough - people will believe it".
Expand
(20min delay)
