how hard is it to proof read the bloody thing?? Well ramamba -...

how hard is it to proof read the bloody thing??
Well ramamba - Pretty obvious no one proof reads the report.
Therefore, according to CGA, key positive contributor to CTN performance is Blackham which rose 44.8% for the month. Much much greater than the market. Hence can only be a key positive contributor, if CTN owns lots of Blackham. But that stock is not held by CTN. So - Greatest magic trick since Houdini. So is placing a ^ symbol next to every stock in those two paras.

As well, CGA loves to obsfucate CTN shareholders instead of being their faithful servant. After all, CTN pays CGA. Why else would performance for the standard periods, like 12 months and 3 years etc not be shown. Only two time periods are shown- obviously the ones that show performance in best possible light.
Also, Notice that the opening paragraph of the portfolio update discusses the quarterly performance. As does the table.
BUT the two paragraphs discussing attribution, the key positive and negative contributors -- wait for it -- are monthly basis, not quarterly. Huh? Is there a disconnect? One gets a strong hint that the PM has delegated report writing to a graduate trainee? Or is so snowed under that reports are written quickly and not proof read?