Posted On: 10/29/2014 5:14:48 PM
Post# of 56324
Hello JMatrix
Thank you for your reply and I fundamentally agree with you. I do think if the insiders are selling shares with the intention of putting the proceeds back into the company that is great. In fact, I tend to think that may be what occurred previously with the revenue share agreement. Keep in mind that insiders have no obligations to reinvest in the company but if that was the intention an announcement to that effect would cause shareholders a sense of comfort. Making assumptions when it impacts shareholder value (PPS) could easily be alleviated by keeping shareholders informed.
Regarding Lakeshore, I am not trying to split hairs here with you and completely understand that opposition by a half dozen people generally can and is addressed way before counsel gets involved and certainly must have been brought to somebody's attention.
I guess it comes down to management, if they did not know, they should have.
We really are in agreement here and again I thank you for your reply.
Thank you for your reply and I fundamentally agree with you. I do think if the insiders are selling shares with the intention of putting the proceeds back into the company that is great. In fact, I tend to think that may be what occurred previously with the revenue share agreement. Keep in mind that insiders have no obligations to reinvest in the company but if that was the intention an announcement to that effect would cause shareholders a sense of comfort. Making assumptions when it impacts shareholder value (PPS) could easily be alleviated by keeping shareholders informed.
Regarding Lakeshore, I am not trying to split hairs here with you and completely understand that opposition by a half dozen people generally can and is addressed way before counsel gets involved and certainly must have been brought to somebody's attention.
I guess it comes down to management, if they did not know, they should have.
We really are in agreement here and again I thank you for your reply.
(0)
(0)
