"In my opinion, this is obfuscation ... nothing more ... nothing less. I find that many of the recent posts are becoming so obscure that I find them to be incomprehensible."With respect, Bas, I didn't go through Law School, and HotCopper doesn't stipulate that only lawyers post here. But they do suggest that posters do their best to be factual and accurate in their postings (paraphrased). HC is a trade discussion platform, not court or English grammar classes, as I have mentioned to you on a few occasions, I believe. So posters need to do their best to write commentary that they feel comfortable with under the TOUs of the platform.
I also dont appreciate the "belittling" tone in your opening statement. And with all due respect, sometimes it is incomprehensible to me (using your term) to try and understand why nominated 'sentiment' posters still chase stocks for years and years. (Observation, of course)
We can have a robust debate here where people can discuss or debate stock information and even , as a shareholder, challenge or question posts that appear to be misinformative without being required by HC to use "commercial English" in statements. How would a poster like Zess, for example, go if he was subject to these same judgments on posts? Zess, you do a great job speaking here, my friend.
"Investigations and enquiries begin from questions asked"That statement is correct in the context in which it was used, referring to the 2019 additional Director request only, which I will now clarify.
Based on the email I received from Sholom. Please see post #:
60213386As I was aware of discussions held between CGB, its lawyers and the regulatory bodies, as told to me by Sholom and from phone calls received from shareholders back in 2019, (
in my role as the contracted Shareholder and Media Relations person), was that people were contacting the ASX and ASIC about the long suspension and demanding answers.
Re the email:
If Sholom, the CEO, stated that CGB was informed by regulatory bodies that shareholders were asking these bodies questions, and a direction was issued by the ASX for the purpose of relisting, then that process would have potentially involved a series of questions and requests from those bodies to investigate the complaints in order to satisfy their DD for giving the relisting approval. So an investigation, in my understanding of the word, was undertaken back then and confirmed by Sholom in his March response. But nothing of significance was found. I add extra detail in the next para...
https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/CGB/02105970.pdfhttps://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/CGB/02108714.pdfHere is what I understand an investigation is. It has 5 phases:
- Define a Question to Investigate. ...
- Make Predictions. ...
- Gather Data. ...
- Analyze the Data. ...
- Draw Conclusions.
So based on my understanding of an investigation..if the inquiries mentioned above, prompted by shareholder inquiries and then undertaken by the ASX, and from ASIC as well, I believe, required a direction given by the ASX that CGB adds an additional Director, then it is reasonable to conclude that decision was derived as a conclusion from the undertaking of an investigation. CGB was already in suspension at the time. Notices as requested by the ASX, issued as Supplementaries at that time, as approved by the ASX, informed the market of outcomes and timelines. Those S.P.'s did not go into all the rigour and minute steps/processes of a discussion/s held between the said company, its lawyers and the regulatory body, from my understanding. So that is further clarification.
Oh, I am aware of Section 19. (No emoji required)
Cheers
