Portfolioplus, not a problem, I can see you haven't got the boxing gloves on. I've discovered rather quickly on this forum that any questioning of ESG's resources, management, management style, or future is considered sacriligious by a few of the longer term holders so I walk gingerly around here.
Apropos ESG's ability to deliver to market, of course I agree with you when you say it is "doable". But it would come at a price and if that price has to be paid, it will be by the shareholders by way of a capital raising. In any event, I don't think an ESG representative in grey coveralls will be arriving any time soon to your front door to hook up your house to the ESG gas supply. And that's essentially what I mean when I call ESG "high risk". They currently have no cash flow, pay no dividends and have large cash outlays.
Imagine what the sp would do today if Casey made a public announcement that the upgrades were proving to be "inconsistent" with what they originally believed. Suppose he used the word "ambiguous" or the word "inconsistent"? Remember what happened to KAR a few days ago when that word was used? Their sp was punished mercilessly. That's why I say "high risk". Your money is completely at the mercy of one person's comments. One wrong word from one person can send the sp tumbling. I'm fully cognisant that can happen with the top of line blue chippers as well, but ESG would find it much harder to recover from that kind of situation.
So just so you know where I'm coming from, in my own portfolio, I call ESG "high risk", RIO "medium risk" and CBA "low risk".
ESG Price at posting:
81.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
