You make some very good points.
I would add, that actually, investors would do a whole lot better if they avoided HC entirely (which I mostly do).
I for one only now post details here on HC of my past research, or part thereof (basically as a copy and paste).
For me, HC is only a bit of a hobby, and definitely not to be taken seriously. In fact, I don't see any value for investors at all in HC i.e. HC does far more damage than good. In fact, I basically only use HC as an information communication hub to the hundreds of followers I have around the world.
Basically, the advent of HC has also given these so-called "lifestyle companies", who somehow got listed on the ASX and who are also extremely poorly regulated (?!), a platform on which to market themselves, where they often make outlandish promises. The advent of HC has thus done irreparable damage to investors pockets. However, where there are major losers, there will also be major winners. Such is life.
The advent of HC has nurtured far more of these so-called "lifestyle companies", where the chances of success are a long-shot from the outset at best. Having said this, social media in general has spawned this practice eg. Reddit, LinkedIn etc.
Nowhere is this more apparent than with Aussie junior explorers, who often know that they have almost worthless tenements, but go ahead and drill them extensively anyway, but at the cost of ignorant investors. Typically, an Aussie junior explorer will kick the can down the road i.e. have a slew of CR's over many years and have absolutely nothing in the end to show for it. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the directors of these dubious companies have done very well indeed, despite the complete absence of success (EDE, TAS and CNJ being classic examples).
It of course goes without saying that the "management quality" of these "lifestyle companies" will always leave an awful lot to be desired (here again, EDE, TAS and CNJ are classic examples).
Having said this, and as I mentioned in my last post, although the "motives" and "management quality" of these "lifestyle companies" are dubious (to say the least!), and thus they are a significant risk, this risk is calculable i.e. it is all part of the game. Knowing this from the outset is crucial.
With regard to CNJ to specifically, the management risk is currently very high (which is why the SP is so low). I, however, remain heavily invested in CNJ, on the basis that I bought in at 1 cent, and just as importantly, I believe that there will be a significant change in the ownership of the Greenland project (primarily Mestersvig), as well as in the ownership of the MTJV project. For both projects this could be an outright sale, a JV or even a TO. I believe that this will all occur within the next few months.
Cheers.
Expand
(20min delay)