CGB Price Discussion Thread, page-124

Ok ... so now you're starting to make a case rather than simply disputing mine. Thank you.

Here's what I see.

1. Revenue increase

Exceedingly moderate. And it is significantly hamstrung because the cost of selling product is just under the income received
Income - Dec 2019 673,365 in Dec 2018 304,167
Costs of Goods Sold - Dec 2019 (544,574) in Dec 2018 (371,334)

2. Expenses have decreased. Some have others have actually increased.

Finance cost - Dec 2019 (1,811,145) in Dec 2018 (548,617) - significant increase by a factor of ~3.3
Other expenses - Dec 2019 (145,833) in Dec 2018 (20,187) - significant increase by a factor of ~7
Research cost - Dec 2019 (1,065,246) in Dec 2018 (401,878) - significant increase by a factor of ~2.65
Exploration expenditure - Dec 2019 (70,198) in Dec 2018 (Nil) - very big increase in comparison to 2018
Advertising and Marketing - Dec 2019 (73,072) and Dec 2018 (115,197)??

Admittedly some costs were lower but is it not the overall result that is important?
And, why would you lower Advertising and marketing? And why spend money on exploration??

Loss before income tax Dec 2019 (5,485,248) in Dec 2018 (4,944,428)
And the impaired loans? Who is paying for those?

3. Moved out of the family home to a corporate office.
Ok

4. Canntab deal

And what is this doing for the bottom line?

5. Asia and Africa deals

And what have these achieved? And do you think that these expansion proposals (CGA etc.) are based on sound economics?

6. 35 million in losses have already been realised so once profit does come in this will be seen as tax free profit

At the rate they are going (according to my extrapolation of the figures noted in the HY report) profit is going to have to grow very quickly from here so that it outpaces the expenses. I just can't see where it will come from.

7. 4.2 million of good will(potentially under valued)(sic)

I noticed that as well and have commented that I would like to see how that is calculated.

8. 6 or so million in the bank

That, in my view, is largely due to the generosity of investors and or, realised by diluting their holdings in share 'giveaways'. So I can argue that the '6 or so million' hasn't been acquired from the sales of goods and services.

The research cost is a complete and utter waste of scarce financial resources - in my view.

So, they want to increase sales but they have lowered advertising and marketing spend and increased research costs by a factor of over 2.5! Can someone please explain the logic behind that decision? Anyone?

I see no purpose for the research cost and I have wondered why a penny stock would even be involved in dolling shareholders money out to a 'research project' in a foreign jurisdiction. How do holders have confidence in the relevance of the research and how that serves the direct commercial interests of shareholders? I think this needs greater research by holders and or, a clear explanation as to the advantages for holders from the BOD.