"* CGB, as reported in its latest Annual report, have reduced expenditure by 20% to $6.66ML compared to $8.4ML in 2019 (3)"
Question is - I noted an inaccuracy the most recent Annual report, are there others? 47952555
"... ten (10) of those years as revenue neutral."
In my opinion - the reporting of accumulated losses could hardly sustain a conclusion of "revenue neutral". Seriously? Exactly what does revenue neutral mean in the context of that meandering post?
CGB loses money and has done so for many, many years - that is an inescapable fact! Even a cursory reading of the Annual Reports establishes that fact.
Last year CGB lost in the vicinity of $8,000,000.00 and this is regarded as a positive thing ... is it?
It seems clear to that haste and enthusiasm to rebut and excuse the facts frequently leads erroneous conclusions.
"Revenue neutral" - sheesh (face slap).
"* CGB reported in their Preliminary and Annual Reports (3) a FY20 revenue of $1.8ML, a 275%increase on the prior year (3)(4)" (sic)
Well isn't that just brilliant ... question is .... what did it cost to make that revenue? A figure, I find, that is rarely posted alongside this miraculous "275%" increase in revenue! Why ignore the cost component of the 'revenue equation? More importantly, to what use is that revenue being put? Again, read the accounts - always follow the cash trail.
I am no chart expert but it seems @kates9999 called out the previous posting of nonsense charts. The depths that are plumbed to make a case for this thing ... astounds me.
Again - a read of the literature on confirmation bias would provide some assistance - I think!
CGB Price at posting:
0.6¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
