It says in the wise-owl.com report that ALT is a speculative buy...

It says in the wise-owl.com report that ALT is a speculative buy with a value estimation of 7.2c per share anticipated to be realised in 2013. Furthermore in the background section is says the company listed on the ASX in 2000 and has raised $80.95 million in issued capital or 14.6c per share. The current share price is 3c. Joy for those who jumped on board late December at 1.6c who have made almost double, but the sad reality is that most of the ALT shareholders are no different than their CBZ cousins. They are suffering.

Funny enough if you are a new CBZite at 6.3c you are equally skipping around wondering what all the fuss is about.

I don't think we can compare CBZ to ALT, they are like apples & oranges. Yeh, ALT is predicted to go to 7.2c. CBZ was predicted last year to go to $1.47 when the SP was in the 20c range. ALT is a speculative buy and you are only going to get 3 times your investment. In my opinion you may as well go to the races!

I feel we have a clash of investment philosophies on this forum. The alternate views cannot understand why the other can't see the indisputable logic of their argument.

I see the CBZ crew had the guts to band together to seek a new beginning. I think we knew what this meant when making this decision. Yes the NN deal was in doubt, yes the overseas directors where likely to be displeased, yes it would take time to re-build networks and contacts and yes it would most likely hit the SP hard. It takes time to get a new culture up and going and a new direction implemented, we'll see how things are 12 months down the track. I think most of the 74% of investors who voted for change would be thinking along those timeframes.

No one likes change so it takes courage to back your judgement and see things through. The SAG got up, rallied the troops and achieved change. They should be applauded.

I can't be absolutely sure, but yes I agree there may have been a bit of editorial licence in some of the SAG statements (but I can't be certain because it blended into what was written on HotCopper which is opinion and entertainment rolled into one), but in essence they were looking for people who were going to look after the best interests of the shareholder. I think the previous board got well ahead of this notion and ultimately that was their downfall. Remember the performance bonus if $1 was hit, the same amount as the original float in 2010. The threat of the mass walkout if the three directors were democratically voted out. Captain Jones not even talking to those present at general meetings. Personnally I don't think the reporting of the results had much to do with it, it was more the catalyst. More of another stuff up that the shareholder was going to have to pay for.

As for HotCopper influencing NN, I can't see that as being plausible. I stand by my assessment that NN were very unlikely to deal with CBZ once Jones & co no longer had control. With the team that they got on the CBZ Board they had the appearance of a very close relationship (and by the way that is only an opinion based on gut feel and I'm sure I'm able to express that).