This is a false equivalency argument @drifta and contains a lot of faulty logic.
Firstly, to suggest that because some could have made profit, if timed correctly and chosen to disregard the company announcements, that is bringing wealth to investors, is a prime example of a logical fallacy. To dissect this, you must look at both sides. Nanood claimed that shareholders have had a wealth transfer over it's existance, this is an exaggeration but not entirely untrue. If you purchased in any of the previous capital raisings, or were given shares in the previous capital raisings, you have had a significant wealth transfer as of today. Separately, but even more accurately, if you had bought, at anytime, from inception until the day of his post, which the price was 0.5cents, you could not have had any positive wealth growth. 0.005 is the lowest price that CGB has been in its entire history. I checked. The previous low was 0.0058 which happend may 1st 2013.
On your side, you then claim, that if someone traded the stock, they could of made wealth. This assumes that Nanood was stating that traders were shareholders, or stakeholders, which they are not at the time of their posting, or if they were, they too would not of made money. Furthermore, you then claim that this misfortune is the fault of shareholders for not selling, which is very much against the logic of Neil in the first place, who claims the company has done several great deals to enhance shareholder value in the last 2 years.
Your post is nearly factless, takes Nanood's completely out of context with the theme of the thread and then falsely tries to equate shareholders at the time of the post with traders at some specifically chosen time in the companies history. Ridiculous premise.
CGB Price at posting:
0.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
