DingoBorat
Slim
I have to disagree with you here Corsors.I find the statement absurd that someone sets a threshold and only above this is a company entitled to be included in the 200 if it still has a low turnover. And this absurdly completely ignores the position the company occupies or the patents it holds.
To illustrate my thought, imagine ARM were to spin off all its patents into a new company and go public on the ASX. The 200 would be denied until some other defined threshold for reasonable turnover is exceeded?! Absurd that is.
As FactFinder said..
"Shorting should be banned fullstop but at the very least pre revenue companies should be protected"
Pre-revenue companies, have a "natural" protection from shorters, if not included in the ASX300 or ASX200, because the shares to lend to them, are just not available in large quantities.
This is the Time and opportunity, for them, to raise funds, while they are still pre-revenue.
If their market capitalisation, forces them into the Big Boys Club (ASX300/200) this period of protection disappears and it's open slather, for the wolves to prey on the young "defenseless" lambs..
The author's original "complaint" was about the "quality" of the index, but I can see, how a young company, would want to avoid inclusion, until it was "ready" had building revenue and was profitable.
Just my opinions and happy to differ..