PEB - Pacific Edge Ltd

[skid]

The PEB SP does not respond to the NBI.

The PEB SP responds only to unsubstantiated claims of bearish emails from the CEO.

I thought you knew this?

I think its a weird mix of outside markets( NBI) and the company itself--Now that the outside markets have calmed,I believe the emphasis has shifted back to the company.
Until these doubts are cleared up I dont see it rocketing.
I think alot of us have become addicted to the ''rocketing'' but now it may be more ''once burned twice shy'' easy as it goes---We'll see (runs for cover)

[SimonHouse]

I think this thread has jumped the shark. I remember coming here in the middle of last year and finding the information and discourse quite useful in understanding the risk and potential for PEB. Not anymore.

[Xerof]

Thanks for explaining your position BK.

I did initially take your comment as genuine, hence I raised the issue of inconsistencies at the Company level - if the comment was never made, they should have retracted it (IMO) The position is exacerbated by privately informing individuals that the published statement should not be relied upon - don't they owe that correction to ALL shareholders.

Secondly robbo raised a valid point of seeking some evidence of DD's statement to you. fairy nuff, I hadn't questioned your motives, but he did.

Apologies if I came across as 'hostile' but perhaps you can understand my point about transparency and even playing fields.

[MAC]

All you traders seem entirely oblivious to the relevant fact that there are actually two CEO’s within the world of Pacific Edge, and when it comes to US sales, such is the jurisdiction of Jackie Walker.

David Darling is a relatively fresh CEO when it comes to overseeing what’s becoming a large listed organisation. IMO he’s doing a superb job, laying down focused multiyear strategies and consistently meeting the goals he provides to the market, it’s one of the reasons I’m heavily invested and committed to Pacific Edge.

If I was in David’s shoes I would absolutely not be responding to any random share trader emails, if indeed he has at all, most CEO’s would not and generally don’t. Particularly if it means pandering to short term holders who have very little interest or loyalty in the prosperity of the company.

I suspect increasingly going forward now he may also feel quite uncomfortable providing sales guidance and/or reporting on PEDusa progress and ambitions, this is Jackie Walkers domain now.

It’s just my opinion, but a part of the reason that we have seen contradictory five year goal targets and seemingly to some (not me) unclear short term guidance is because Jackie is relatively new to the organisation and is probably only just now starting to assert some authority over her portfolio. I was pleased to see her January announcement to this effect. https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/188563.pdf

I’m confident that Pacific Edge will provide us with good guidance either at FY14 reporting or more likely at the AGM in August, although certainly IMO they will get a total roasting if not by then. I would be disappointed if Jackie does not deliver this guidance in person too.

All good things come to the patient.

[robbo24]

I am not going to "provide proof" by posting the email itself. It is a private email query to the company and responce.

That's fine, just keeps things interesting.

I would have thought that sales information is price sensitive, in which case inventing such information may fall fowl of s 11 of the Securities Markets Act 1988:

s 11 False or misleading statement or information
A person must not make a statement or disseminate information if—

• (a) a material aspect of the statement or information is false or the statement or information is materially misleading; and

• (b) the person knows or ought reasonably to know that a material aspect of the statement or information is false or that the statement or information is materially misleading; and

• (c) the statement or information is likely to—
  
  • (i) induce a person to trade in the securities of a public issuer; or
  
  
  
  • (ii) have the effect of increasing, reducing, maintaining, or stabilising the price for trading in those securities; or
  
  
  
  • (iii) induce a person to vote for, or vote against, a transaction, or to abstain from voting in respect of that transaction.

Equally, the disconnect between the public statement in the article and the private statement (allegedly reproduced by you) could be cause for concern for management of PEB. This has been alluded to by Balance in an earlier post.

However, seeing as the "best evidence" is the tangible, published evidence when weighed against your unpublished, unproven email, it is still my current view that you are simply rattling the cage.

Once again, more than happy to be proven wrong!

[geo]

BK - why won't you post at least a screenshot of the email? Blank out your name and leave the rest. Otherwise, seems fair for others to not believe you.

NG why don't you email DD yourself and post his response here??????????????

[Tsuba]

There appear's to be a few precious little bunnies bouncing around on this thread.

[robbo24]

My concern at the reliability of the one-line comment attributed to the chair, buried in a general article in the ODT, and quite contrary to the policy of the company not to give near term projections, was what led me to email the company.

Thanks.

Your comments are only evidence in the context of a discussion on a public forum about whether your information is actually exists. No need for you to feign being naive in that regard black knat.

It is important and material information.

You brought it up and got questioned on its veracity. You say it is private correspondence, yet it is about the sales information of a publicly listed company. It is clearly an option to you to blank out your name and details to support what you say.

Otherwise, you're seemingly implying that PEB allowed incorrect sales projections to be published without correcting those details.

That's the only relevant thing now, don't you agree?

[MAC]

If David Darling ever emailed contrary information or did not is really not even a bit an important matter.

Pacific Edge are indeed absolutely content with the “tens of thousands of tests in 2014” guidance, else they would have, QED;

a) Demanded the ODT print a retraction, which they must do if incorrect, and yet have not, or,

b) Better clarified with the media at the next opportunity, which they did not.

Storms in tea cup’s people, sometimes I’m astonished that so many have so little to do other than use this site like its facebook.

[Minerbarejet]

Perhaps some of the contestants in this ongoing fracas should go to the source of the problem. Why doesnt somebody get a hold of Simon Hartley at ODT for clarification. He wrote it.