"Sheesh - "cash reserves" when there are losses year after year after year after year. Seriously, I find it incredible that this kind of commentary can be taken seriously."
Bas, I believe that you are an intelligent poster and your posts seem to be quite articulate even when sometimes engaging sarcasm. You have followed/commented on this stock since 2016, I believe, and I am sure, having observed your posts/commentary on their ann's, for the past few years, that you were aware that the company was not in a position to earn revenues, and like all other mining explorers who have restrictions on revenue-earning/mining for ore, experience losses, year after year after year until they secure the coveted mining license, secure contracts and turn the sod.
I am curious though; Are you trying to intimate in your comments that the company had full control over their losses which occurred during their non-revenue years? Surely not! Mmmm...
"I also think that, for the benefit of new posters, it would be reasonable to include a note in your posts pointing to the fact that you were previously employed by the company or were contracted to perform shareholder liaison / PR duties. Fact!"
Thanks for the question and happy to reply to all new posters.
I had a media arts business and was invited in 2018/19 to provide limited media contractual services to CGB (parent company) for their SM pages. I was never an employee. HC was informed in 2020 when my contract concluded and the forum was also informed by Sholom Feldman. I had a small notation at the bottom of my posts for almost 2 months after I terminated my services with CGB until informed by HC admin that it was no longer needed. In the middle of the year, I became a major shareholder in the company and have continued to increased my holdings in the last 2 months.
"Can you show posters where this information (i.e. trade wars and red tape) was provided to shareholders at the time it was known? Or, is this simply an 'afterthought' to deflect / fend off reasonable questions?"
Bas, no "fending off" action was required, intended or adopted. I am simply a shareholder, like other shareholders. I think that the question you ask is a bit mischievous actually requesting that I answer you directly with information that you know could only be answered by the company. Sholom stated the information you mention in the above extract in his Q & A reply which I posted to the forum with my own opinion noted. So my opinion in reply to you is: It has been my observation of many years of trading in resource companies that red tape is more the norm than the unusual when applying for licenses. I have not seen many companies if any unless requested by the ASX, report redtape issues during the approval process. Many mining shareholders, that I have spoken to over the years, are also aware that companies engage experienced Geologists or Mining Lease management companies to handle licensing approvals. Large miners have all the legal teams as part of their staff.
CGB had an experienced Geologist in Robert Coeenraads who appears to have cut through the red tape and get the necessary approvals. Mining companies also are under no obligation to explain all the processes/difficulties they might experience "at the time" when obtaining approvals. They just have to get it done and update the market on the approval timetable.
I agree - read the financials in their entirety. Use that data to draw your own conclusions. It is my view that a fair reading of the published financial data is able to support conclusions that are at significant variance to that which has been noted in the post to which I am replying."
You are non-holder and I am a shareholder, so I am happy to stand by my comments and let' s agree to disagree with your comment about variances...
Cheers.....59
Expand
