RE:RE:PLEASE POST INTERVIEW ON YOU TUBE false and defametory
gabriel grega
why did you choose aphria?
because it's well known by now. we speak seldom on a public basis. check dozens and dozens of ideas. two criterias for speaking, 1 ) fraud or crime 2) if we reach a critical mass of information to substaniate the thesis. somethign very serious might be happening with this company. therefore, this passes both of our filters and share thesis with public.
one reason that short sellers go public is to create negative atmosphere, why do you not go public sometimes?
i never do, since we started activities, we only take short positions when we can go public. when we are brave enough. in the end, the facts have always spoken. we do things differently than average fund, we only speak when we are certain.
strong reaction with management and other equity firms. are you ready to stand in legal venue?
not only ready, but willing to. the smoking guns are not excessible. but readily accessible during discovery. have a list of docs that we want to review. those are the smoking guns alongside the other ones that we have already published. please check out the video
what led you to investigate latin american operations?
the investigation started noticing that there were some anomolies. usually companies acquire directly, we noticed shells in this case. when we looked into those companies, and we saw that they were changed. all had delavaco. when we saw that we thought it was pretty strange. we checked out comparable transactions by other companies and we saw very often that companies were paid 10x as much. we often saw assets that were not worth the amount of money they paid for. the reason to go there was to see whether our guess was correct.
some allegations you make about shell companies are whats under dispute. did you access any other non-public info.
no. check out company registers.
as you prepare this report, are you aware that you are suggesting behaviour that is criminal?
1) we never used the word fraud for these allegations. i spoke about frauds exposed in the past. all we do is present facts and present our views on these facts.
to be clear, at the beginning of the interview, you stated you only go after when you say they have fraud and total information. are you saying that you dont have those?
we wont use that word that you are insisting that we should use.
have you shared this info with regulators?
we cannot comment on this. lots of spotlight, but i woudlnt be surprised. we have trust in them.
can you tell me when you began to take a short position in it?
we cannot disclose the timing of our short position. our bias is to act only after we have enough information and if we are convinced of opinion, we take position.
we still ahve a sizeable short position.
significant value in cdn valuation, how do you value that at $0?
main thesis has to do with latin america and nuuvera. i'm sure the company has assets in canada. why did we say $0? when we target companies, the company is setting up for a massive asset write off. they wont be able to raise any share capital or debt. when they have negative operating cash flows, so they will have a hard time raising new cash. they need cash as oxygen. legal expenses, class actions, we believe that may be the case here OR NOT.
others can pursue these avenues, should have others uncovered this (financiers, journalists etc).
there are two different questions, should have they dont better DD, yes. am i surprised, no, that's the way that the world works. sometimes people have conflict of interest. funny enough, small investors which are curious, lots of people trying to independently corroborate the information. investors should not rely on what companies say.
SORRY ABOUT SPELLING. THIS WAS TYPED AS INTERVIEW WENT ON.