@corona ... these are good questions, and should be asked of the company at the time of the write off. I do that, and I would suggest that any shareholder who has questions contact the company where you are invested, and make a written enquiry, if you don't understand or agree with a decision made by the management.
So, let me ask you a couple of questions, and I think they are reasonable in light of your comments.
1. Would you rather be a shareholder who just learns, from an ASX announcement, that your mining investment is now in receivership, and you realise that you have done your dough, because the management of the mining company, you trusted, and thought was ok, didn't read the writing on the wall, for whatever reason, and held onto to those non-producing, cost accruing shareholder approved tenements, and went broke.
or;
2. Would you rather have a company that you have invested in, consider the data from the Jorc reports, geologists, financial reports (expenses), global supply/demand index, your shareholder approved Board's recommendations, and make the hard decision to let the lease expire in order to preserve funds which ultimately leads them to find a richer revenue resource, or perhaps go through a transformation activity to save the company from destruction and liquidation?
If the mining report I referenced earlier is any indication, then about 50% of those mining explorers eventually, for whatever reason decided to call it a day on shareholder funds. CGB (QBL) hasn't. Mining is a tough business, corona, you know that. I believe that only 10% of miners actually do really well and end up in the Major cap league.
CGB for whatever reason let those tenements expire to preserve my funds and my investment. I am glad that they are still listed and are not one of the many ASX casualties that have forgotten their shareholders.
...59
CGB Price at posting:
0.6¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
