No point arguing with me, the GXY share price performance over the same period tells the story. Just like it has told the story here with A40.
The $280M sale was a brilliant move and a huge lifeline thrown to the company, but not a repeatable one and it hides the performance of the rest of the business over the same period. I'm merely saying that if you were to remove the non-repeatable sale of assets and add back in their non-repeatable external investments (like the cash dumped in to A40), the Australian business which is the repeatable part didn't perform too well the last 12 months even though was 'cash flow positive' according to your analysis (not that other producers performed well or better, I'm not comparing here). The cash balance tells the story, as we both agree on.
