"Afroboy - you play the share price and market depth rather than the underlying company. Its like in soccer playing the man and not the ball."
No dek010, you are not understanding my point. My point is that it was impossible to understand the underlying company based on ASX announcements. They were contradictory and did not explain or justify aspects that obviously required it. For example, with forecast expenditure of $2 mil for previous quarter, where did the $9mil overspend come from?? You are basing your understanding of the underlying company from your close relationship with directors - when you have questions, they give you answers (to the exctent they can) - I know you cannot argue this fact.
For the general public with only ASX announcements to consider as fact - and no further input/clarification from directors - the underlying company seemed dodgy and dishonest, despite having quality assets (which is proven). Assets alone were not going to bring the real value to this company - it relied on management being competent enough to see us over the line. Poor announcements suggested to the general public that they lacked this competence.
Let's just leave these personal attacks dek010 - we have gone round and round in circles on this many times before. Let's just discuss the "underlying company"
MAE Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
