Makattack,Your comments are noted with thanks. I may have stated...

Makattack,

Your comments are noted with thanks. I may have stated this previously on HC (certainly have through email correspondence with colleagues) that CER?CNP's "growth plan" as you put it was not flawed per se. It was appropriate for its time. This is the simple truth. Hindsight vision is 20-20 and to say looking back that it was flawed is slightly disingenuous and quite frankly it is a bit rich.

In hindsight, foolish as Andrew Scott was, had we not entered into a contractionary phase of credit availability (read as "Credit Freeze"), Andrew Scott would still be CEO and in fact he would be a lauded as a Hero.

The fact remains however that he was scalped and the remainder of sharehodlers got a monumental haircut. All of this, as I pointed out in a previous post today, is merely a sign of the external environment in which CER and many, many other stocks are operating.

Perhaps you are correct. CER will not enter a growth phase for a very long time. I agree with your postulation here. I also agree with your statement that it's about survival.

Could you concede however, that as far as survival is going CER is doing nothing short of a remarkable job? Objectively speaking as a non-holder could you admit as much irrespective of your sentiment towards CER.

Tomski highlighted an interesting point although I disagreed with it about holders being forever optimistic. I feel the same way, though in the reverse about Resource Stocks. I despise them. Even the Blue Chips. But this has little to do with any of their respective fundamentals and more to do wit hthe volatility that they add to a concentrated portfolio.

I posit that CER is not all that bad. It's not for everyone but neither is investing in Cash for a real return of negative 1% or thereabouts.

....
Cheers.