next most likely..., page-17

Michinyon. Thanks for that - a sharp and academic approach. Sadly I find almost everything you wrote is questionable. See, I disgree:

1. that the market "reflects the median of investor expectations", because many participants are not "investors";

2. that you could know whether "the market has poor understanding of CGF's business and how to value it", because that implies that you know what the true value is; in other words, you must be better at understanding information about CGF's future earnings than the whole market or that you have inside information (both very unlikely);

3. with your observation that "bearish conditions" are prevailing, because much of market is charging north again;

4. with the idea that "all other things being equal, many companies are somewhat oversold rather than undersold", because all things are not "equal" and because it implies that reversion to the mean (and Gaussian distribution) applies to shares, which is dubious; and, even if it is true, it certainly is not meaningful when considering a stock in isolation (this is commonly known as the Gamblers' fallacy); nor

5. that we can conclude "therefore" that is it "reasonable" "on balance of probabilities" that it could "rise to 2.50", because what is reasonable has no bearing on the sharemarket and because you haven't really explained what drivers shift the balance in its favour.

I couldn't agree more, though, with your thought that CGF "could" go to 2.50. It "could" go to $10. It "could" go to $1.

I do think CGF has great management and it might be a long-term bargain. Only time (and new information) will tell.