So now Alpha says LINE is a PONZI scheme. Hhmmm. Wonder how a company that has been existence for years, (how many years?) and has continually done well, and has paid dividends every quarter, and has produced SEC required accounting Q's and K's is only now being called a Ponzi scheme? Doesn't it seem like any reputable securities writing firm with any kind of reasonable analyst with any integrity would have issued that kind of statement years ago, instead of waiting until someone shoots the company. And speaking of that, it is apparent that someone from Berry is reasonably behind the issues for LINE right now. After all, now the issue is that Berry would not receive sufficient consideration from LINE, and with the current market pps, that is correct. But the deal was struck under different circumstances and it is apparent that the directors or officers or both who didn't approve, but were outvoted, have found a way to strike back and force the deal to probably be cancelled. So then the writings come out about the inside problems with LINE. Say, why weren't those issues publicized prior to the deal, or better yet, prior to this year, or perhaps even prior to last year? Are the anyalyst truly so incompetent they couldn't figure the situations within LINE months, or years ago, but had to wait until now to see what was possibly evident? While they question the integrity of LINE accounting and management, perhaps their integrity should be questioned. JMO
The article was absolutely ridiculous. A ponzi scheme depends upon monies from naive individuals and falls apart when redemption demands can't be met. This is an ongoing cash generating enterprise borrowing money from professionals who can assess the business and the risks and payouts to partners can be reduced at any time. It's just crazy to call this a Ponzi scheme.