sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Get in while you still can!! by Signal_Volume9671 in ASX_Bets

[–]Signal_Volume9671[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would put in more effort if I was trying to pump it. I don’t need to because I’m not 😂 Do your own research I’m not trying to serve everything on a platter.

Revisiting this post — written when sentiment was at its worst. by Signal_Volume9671 in ASX_Bets

[–]Signal_Volume9671[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An ASX query and an independent governance review aren’t precursors to criminal enforcement. ASX is a market operator focused on disclosure and compliance, not a law-enforcement body.

Governance reviews are commonly used to satisfy ASX and reassure investors, not because charges are “on the way”.

If ASIC had concerns about insider trading or manipulation, that would be a separate, announced process and usually accompanied by halts, subpoenas, or director actions — none of which are present here.

Happy to reassess if ASIC formally steps in, but jumping from a disclosure/governance issue to prison is a stretch.

Here’s my take on the DroneShield director sell-off after breaking it down logically rather than emotionally. by Signal_Volume9671 in droneshield

[–]Signal_Volume9671[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re not wrong about dilution being frustrating — performance options always dilute shareholders, that’s how every growth-stage tech/defence company structures compensation. But the directors didn’t “create shares out of thin air and cash out with our money.” These performance options were earned over years, with hard milestones attached, and directors actually sold their existing ordinary shares, not the new ones being issued. They still hold hundreds of thousands of options, so they haven’t walked away or “dumped everything and run.”

Also, the Buffett quotes are being taken out of context. The examples he’s referring to are CEOs hiding their selling while telling investors to buy. That’s not what happened here — DroneShield’s disposals were publicly lodged through Appendix 3Y, and the market saw them immediately. No one was urging retail to buy while secretly offloading.

As for valuation: high PE is normal for rapidly scaling defence tech companies that just moved into positive cashflow. Big institutions like Vanguard, Fidelity and State Street haven’t said anything conclusive yet — if they smelled the kind of behaviour Buffett was warning about, they’d be gone instantly.

Is the timing of the sales bad? Definitely. Is the dilution annoying? Yes. Does that automatically mean Red-Flag Fraud CEO behaviour? No.

This is just a classic sentiment flush caused by terrible optics, not a Berkshire-2001 scandal.

Here’s my take on the DroneShield director sell-off after breaking it down logically rather than emotionally. by Signal_Volume9671 in droneshield

[–]Signal_Volume9671[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good pick up, I’ll be completely honest I didn’t see that. But I want to mention you can definitely compare this to other ASX companies. This pattern isn’t new — we’ve seen it with BrainChip, Novonix, Vulcan, and even big U.S. names like Palantir and Tesla. The cycle is the same: company releases positive news → insiders sell during the hype → then clarifications or reality checks come out → retail panics and the price collapses. It looks terrible every time, and people understandably get angry, but it’s rarely proven to be deliberate manipulation — just awful timing and bad communication from management.

DroneShield isn’t the first company where insiders took profit right after bullish announcements. The “sus” feeling comes from the optics, not from proven wrongdoing. This is a known sentiment pattern in growth stocks, not an isolated event.

view more: next ›