I have read many of the comments today and many posters, I think, are asking relevant questions re certain aspects of the decisions being taken by the company.
While I was reading the 2019 Annual Report (again) to reinforce the point made by @jantimot - I ran into this paragraph. I actually laughed out aloud - kids thought it rather odd but I honestly could not help myself.
"In view of the relatively early stage of development of the Company's business and remuneration policies, there is insufficient information to provide a meaningful quantitative analysis of the relationship between remuneration and Company performance." (p. 14)
That's because a relationship between remuneration and company performance ... does not exist and it hasn't for some time and in my opinion it is still some distance away!
After reading the announcement this morning - I honestly thought to myself, 'surely the cheer squad will not come out and defend this dross - surely not? It's simply not defendable!' As I was musing over the detail - I shook my head - looked at the dump of shares and retreating SP and concluded, '... what the hell were people expecting after that?"
Maybe the expectation was for shareholders to all shout out, "O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" (Lewis Carroll, 'Alice in Wonderland') - just seemed appropriate at this juncture.
Is the BOD aware that, if a holder bought into the recent cap raise that they are sitting on a 42.85% paper loss and they have diluted their holdings even further? And the HC rep pops in and asks me about the use of a green emoji ... that's enough to make a mild mannered person very "frumious" (Lewis Carroll again)
@big finn yes ... I saw the Cayman Island thing as well ... it was posted via a link from @kates9999 from memory. Worth a giggle.
So, if I am understanding things correctly after today.
1. The CGB BOD resolved to issue more shares via a convertible note thereby further diluting existing shareholders wealth. Yes?
2. And the CGB BOD, in their search for additional cash (to do whatever it is that they plan to do) could not see an opportunity to call in all of the outstanding, unsecured, interest free loans and debts totalling ~$1,760,000? Yes?
3. And did the CGB BOD, in issuing the convertible note, even bother to consider conducting a comprehensive review of all company expenditure inc management services agreements, rents etc. before agreeing to further dilute shareholders wealth?
What do the 'independent' Directors have to say about this convertible note?
Q, Was this additional funding noted in the documentation of the previous cap raise? If not - why not? Or, are we entitled to conclude that the BOD has no strategic plan or, if there is a plan, that it has now changed? Or, are we simply entitled to conclude that they might just be ambling along?
Given what is occuring
Q. Will there be anymore other financial instruments be used to raise more funds?
Q. How have the interests of shareholders been advanced by issuing the convertible note referred to today?
Q. Will the BOD now consider issuing a Letter of Demand to Volcan Pty Ltd for the outstanding amount of $1,200,000 so that the CGB balance sheet can be strengthened to shield shareholders from further dilution?
And please spare me the, "ring the company" nonsense. That time has long passed.
Convertible notes - who do posters imagine might profit out of this? The shareholders of the issuing entity? Not very likely in my view.
Convertible notes - who do you imagine is carrying the 'lion's share' of the risk associated with this transaction? The holders of the convertible note? Not very likely in my view.
Staggered or flabbergasted? It was very hard to decide on which word to apply.
