Meyer Gutnick?, page-30

"The company does have a healthy cash balance however it is prudent this is preserved."

Given the level of expenditure on the 'services' supplied by AGMPL (see related party transactions 2018 Annual Report) they might well need that, "... healthy cash balance" particularly if those expenses continue to increase at the same or similar rate as between 2017 and 2018.

I would have thought it better to buy assets with available cash or, a mix of cash, scrip or share equity? However, it seems as though asset acquisition via share issue is the preferred payment method by QBL - irrespective of the dilution upon existing holdings.

"... but don't let anyone on this forum dictate your investment decisions"

That goes without saying and applies equally to the views of holders and contrarians. I would encourage holders and non holders to read everything they can and resist the urge to abandon your critical thinking skills in preference to, 'riches beyond the dreams of avarice'.

Here's a question worth considering for all holders.

At this point in time, and going back at least for the previous 5 years, who has enjoyed financial benefit from QBL being in 'business'? The answer is easy - in my view - it's acknowledging the reality that's the difficult part.

Admittedly, this might change but as things stand I can see no evidence to suggest that it might. If, QBL does establish some commercial viability by way of company income from sales of product and or dividends for holders, then us non holders can buy in when it has been de-risked. The silly notion that an investor must buy today or tomorrow (if it was trading) is plainly ridiculous. Irrespective of what happens on HC - QBL is not a club.

Why not buy when it is 50c and more likely to increase than when it is 3.7c and burdened with considerable risk?

Why would an astute investor buy a share in a company that records around 140k of income and notes an approximate 5 million dollar loss (see 2018 Annual Report)?

It is curious that some holders have taken to claiming multiple identities to rebuke the arguments of contrarians but they never seem to lay the same claim upon declared holders who may well be doing the same thing. And as for this latest "let's sue the contrarians" nonsense - that's just a plainly embarrassing idea. What's the cause of action - hurt feelings?

Awaiting the re-listing - price action might be interesting. Might even be worth a very ST trade.