Firstly, I applaud you
@samlfcynwa for taking the time to make those enquiries.
I am often asked why I do not do what you have done. Easy answer, the basis of posting on HC is anonymity. Further, the identity of posters is not, and should not be the issue at hand when examining the investment quality of a particular stock.
I must admit, the answers to the questions are somewhat more elaborate than previous responses which I think is to their credit.
Nonetheless, I still find some of them to be vague and ambling. However, that's merely my view and other posters might find the responses informative. That assessment is for the individual to make.
In the interests of fairness - I will assume that what you have posted are unedited responses from a member or, members of the BOD of CGB.
1. The answer on the loans issue is to be welcomed. What is particularly encouraging is, "[W]
e have not entered into any new loan arrangements with related parties this financial year to date and have no intention to do so" (my bold). That seems very definitive, to my mind.
2. The answer to the Volcan loan (it hardly matters whether it was cash or otherwise) is also encouraging. "
CGB is actively pursuing the repayment of the debt.".
If, they are actively pursuing payment, then I think they should send a
Letter of Demand to the Volcan Directors requiring Volcan to either pay the debt immediately or, return the asset to CGB. I will write it for them free of charge. If, they retrieve the asset, then CGB can sell it off to the highest bidder. I am not sure why CGB shareholders should 'carry' Volcan. They (Volcan) own a truckload of CGB shares - simply sell some and pay the debt.
3. That's an improvement on the loans issue. I have long argued that loaning of money (interest free) to related parties is not capable of being characterised as the 'core business' of CGB. Nor is it, I contend, in the interests of shareholders. In effect, loans made by CGB to related parties, shifts the risk attaching to those loans, onto the shareholders. Volcan is the epitome of this point. If, a related party wants some cash, then they should go and talk to a bank - I think.
4. Get rid of the geologist. If, they were serious about the bauxite, then they would be spending far more on developing the South Johnstone tenements. Fact is - I do not think that $36,000 is going to buy a lot of geologist time to do any meaningful work.
5. I don't speak for all contrarians. Irrespective, my views are well known on the CGB thread. To note that they are not aware of what those views are, strikes me as somewhat incredulous. In any event, the questions preceding and following Q #5 are the concerns that I hold as a contrarian.
6. I think that the AGMPL contract should be reviewed by an independent person. Fact is - it ought to be offering CGB shareholders best value for money. Perhaps, it does but 'arms length' transactions ought to be the mantra - I think. Does anyone know that it does provide good value? After all the AGMPL arrangement has been around longer than the Volcan debt.
7. It may have been misinterpreted but my question was directed at what they are managing (given the shipping delays due to lunar events etc.) and not how their salaries compare. They are two different issues. I referred above to some of the questions as being vague - this is what I was talking about. I seeking clarification as to who was managing the, "shipping delays" and "lunar events" that caused the delays - apparently.
I think shareholders should not have to read about excuses and justifications for why things have not been achieved. Rather, they should be reading about what has been achieved and how they will benefit.
8. That's a list of events and transactions. Fine. But what is the outcome? How have shareholders been benefitted by this list of events and transactions? Surely, that is the 'bottom line' and basis of any worthwhile enquiry?
