BAD Accounting, Worse Disclosure, And Caught In A Big BAD Lie

Key takeaways from Geoff Morgan’s  Financial Post piece: Badger took 1.5 months to call a reporter back and then lied to him. BAD still has not answered the questions—even very simply, why are there 2 different sets of 2015 numbers? Which should we believe? BAD had “private meetings with shareholders,” the very definition of intentional selective disclosure, yet claims publically answering questions would “inadvertently have selective disclosure.” Disclosure has gotten worse, not better. The AUDITED NUMBERS cannot be relied upon. Which is it? It can’t be both.Top 15 Books On Every Investment Professionals Reading List [timeless] Why is Badger claiming…