CGB retail investor sentiment, page-14

"... but rather that we can finally be rid of some holders who clearly do not want to be holders anymore."

Why? Why do you care who holds and who does not? It makes no sense. I am invested in a stock and it makes no difference to me - not one - who holds and who doesn't hold! Whether you hold a stock that I hold - I simply could not care.

In fact, I would invite all HC posters to comment on that stock however they so choose. Someone doing research for me - yes thank you! Thing is - if there was a poster who continually posted opinions and referenced data that supported those opinions - I would examine that information very closely.

My view on CGB is that it might well do very well. And for those who are invested - I sincerely hope that it does.

However, I think it may require a significant shift away from the practices that existed in AGV, QBL and now CGB. Unsecured loans and payments to related entities have featured in the financial reports for AGV, QBL and CGB. For example, why has CGB loaned ~$21,000 to AGMPL? Where is the benefit to CGB shareholders in that loan?

And why can CGB not declare, when referencing related party transactions, something like, "These services are provided on normal commercial terms and at arm’s length." Easy sentence to include and it might build further investor confidence.

It is a very curious thing that many, many HC threads, particularly 'penny stocks', are regularly beset by utterly pointless factionalism. HC is a place for the sharing of views both positive and negative. I think if you struggle with hearing negative things then maybe you're in the wrong game?

And @BigDaniel re your post https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/39619813/single - I just didn't understand the point of that post. Convolution is not a substitute for clarity.

Good luck with the re-list one and all.