I think that it's many people bought into SCRC bas
Post# of 7769
Posted On: 08/30/2014 7:21:28 PM
Re: celtics2014 #4324
I think that it's many people bought into SCRC based on the hope of the RapiMeds Asia and feel a bit slated that X months later we have a big goose egg from such a promising opportunity. Honestly, I get that. But some people are so blinded by their disappointment with RapiMeds that nothing else matters, not even a $50 million run rate from compounding.
I have also heard some skepticism from a couple friends about the quick jump from $494K in March to $4 million in July. And my response to them is the same as it is here, one word, "credibility". Some people take the missed RM targets, the switch from China to HK, the HK approval, and the HK PO with no shipment several months later to view other opportunities with a level of skepticism that clouds everything. In my opinion, if an investor believes leadership isn't credible, they should sell and move on.
Personally, I've not been pleased about all these changes with RM, but I know there is one person who is more disappointed than any of us, Bob Schneiderman. The regulatory red tape in Asia has clearly taken him much longer than anticipated and he is extremely disappointed, but has not given up. He is focused on making it happen and doing it the right way. So the way I see it, the issues with RM relate more to leadership's misunderstanding of the process at the beginning. And we have no idea what was represented to them by Forbes to secure the deal. In my opinion, the difference between representations that are made with a lack of complete understanding versus an intent to defraud are night and day. Some people, however, see no such difference and view everything with skepticism and disbelief. Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing representations made without a complete understanding. This is a credibility discussion. And I believe Bob is one of the most honest people whom I've met. Many of his prior representations have seen support in the subsequent filings. He has also learned quite a bit over the past several months regarding Asia.
To that end, depending on which group an investor chooses dictates the lenses through which they view the non-RM revenues and opportunities.
I have also heard some skepticism from a couple friends about the quick jump from $494K in March to $4 million in July. And my response to them is the same as it is here, one word, "credibility". Some people take the missed RM targets, the switch from China to HK, the HK approval, and the HK PO with no shipment several months later to view other opportunities with a level of skepticism that clouds everything. In my opinion, if an investor believes leadership isn't credible, they should sell and move on.
Personally, I've not been pleased about all these changes with RM, but I know there is one person who is more disappointed than any of us, Bob Schneiderman. The regulatory red tape in Asia has clearly taken him much longer than anticipated and he is extremely disappointed, but has not given up. He is focused on making it happen and doing it the right way. So the way I see it, the issues with RM relate more to leadership's misunderstanding of the process at the beginning. And we have no idea what was represented to them by Forbes to secure the deal. In my opinion, the difference between representations that are made with a lack of complete understanding versus an intent to defraud are night and day. Some people, however, see no such difference and view everything with skepticism and disbelief. Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing representations made without a complete understanding. This is a credibility discussion. And I believe Bob is one of the most honest people whom I've met. Many of his prior representations have seen support in the subsequent filings. He has also learned quite a bit over the past several months regarding Asia.
To that end, depending on which group an investor chooses dictates the lenses through which they view the non-RM revenues and opportunities.
(0)
(0)