Hi @Xiangtrader, there is another side from a shareholder's perspective. Note: I am also aware of the difficulties that some stocks have when dealing with large S.O.I's that require attrition (time-related) and/or strong buyer interest to move the price. But I do prefer progress and preserved C.I.B., over insolvency!
Sorry for the long reply!
******
Regarding some recent comments made about the company. I must say that I don't agree with the premise of the majority of these, even though they may be based on "selective data" extracted from CGB's operating reports.
Here is what I have found...
Re Expenditure numbers...
Something for everyone to keep in mind when assessing acquired expenditure is the accrual period. The figure quoted in the post I am commenting on is for 13 years of operations; not 2 or 3 years, like some of the other Cannabis players; who, by the way, have much higher accrued Expenditure numbers than CGB, and are still not making profits.
To support my comments, here is a chart I did on the Cannabis sector from the Yearly Reports. I have extracted CGB's time as a Cannabis company away from its mining of the previous 10 years where it was a non approved revenue earner. The table shows where CGB lies in the group for managing expenditure. You draw your own conclusions on how they are managing their Financials. CGB operates with similar raw products to many, if not all of these companies. To be fair, comparison data on their competitors should be considered when assessing management/business competence from an investment perspective. (an opinion)
Another point to consider is that CGB, when they were QBL/AGV, were only mining explorers (non approved revenue earners), not mining producers (approved revenue producers), for well over a decade.
******************************************************************
Re some of the comments, I will try and address them in part and whole.
In Sholom's recent Q & A reply, #49736827, he points out the difficulties caused by the International Trade Wars and red tape delays, which from what I can ascertain, had begun to disrupt/delay the progress of their Bauxite business.
COMMENT: "And AGV apparently had interests in gold and gems (e.g. ML1492). I can't remember anything coming out of AGV ..."
From Sholom Feldman, the CEO, in his recent Q & A post #49736827.
SHOLOM: "Generally we would have sold projects at an earlier stage of development, as AGV did in its earlier years on gold projects it was developing, and then sold for a couple million dollar cash profit..."
AGV transitioned to QBL after selling its Gold interests for over $2ML+ profit and moved into the Bauxite resources at the peak of the ore demand back in 2011. So, in actuality, it did make something as stated by the CEO...
COMMENT: "...they also had bauxite deposits when the price of bauxite was rising - nothing came of that - other than the expenditure of shareholder funds!"
SHOLOM: "..An exploration company, or a mining development company, by definition, is not allowed to mine ore to generate revenue without getting the final mining license....from discovery of a resource through to the various bulk testing phases, and then the environmental reports and approvals, and the feasibility studies, and then the granting of a mining license, that is generally a 10 year process."
So, in short, we never were licensed to actually turn the mining projects we were developing into cash generating projects, as that is only legally able to be done right at the end of a projects development when the final mining license is issued, and the company was never issued with a mining license, but it did discover a valuable resource, and take that resource through to the stage of advanced scoping studies, and now that project is at a good point for either another company focused on mining to develop, or for our company to develop should we wish to again place the focus and capital on doing so."
Most Shareholders who invest in the mining sector are already aware of the risks and rewards associated with resource price volatility and ongoing concerns of viability, from non-revenue making Mining Explorers until they become Mining Producers. Many companies do fail along this average 10-year journey and end up losing shareholder funds completely. CGB has retained its entity with reasonable cash reserves.
We also have to remember that QBL, before becoming CGB, was at Year 7/10, of the normal 10-year mining cycle and operating reports indicate that the Mining License was in the final stages to completion.
So, I disagree completely with the comment where it mentions, when referring to the Bauxite deposits; "nothing came of that - other than the expenditure of shareholder funds!"
CGB, formerly QBL, is making revenues off the back of its mining business and has preserved shareholder funds, whilst still retaining the mining tenement for a rainy day. CGB has a Mining Division. It remains an ongoing concern and mentioned in their reports.
So... I would have to say that they are indeed making something of their time in business! It is an investment that "requires time and patience" for those wanting to stay. Looking at the 626ML in the buy lines, whether they be props or genuine bids, one thing is for certain, CGB is attracting a lot of attention and people are keen to see CannTab hit the shores, I am!
Posters need to fact check data mentioned on SM against reports, even historicals, when making your decision to invest (company product vs profit making) in any stock! "All" posts are just viewpoints and opinions.
