The flipside to that argument is if they are sitti
Post# of 15187
(Total Views: 647)
Posted On: 01/18/2017 11:50:37 PM
The flipside to that argument is if they are sitting on the majority of shares, they are sitting on ownership of the company. Why give that back to the shareholders since they are not obligated to do so?
I'm a shareholder and I want them to relist as bad as anyone, I'm just searching for a legit reason for them to do so.
If you think it through objectively and without hysterics, all the reasons people are listing here for them to relist can also be said to be exact reasons for them to keep ownership to themselves and not relist.
If the company is growing and revenues are booming, what incentive do they have to share that if they don't have to? They can keep blaming KBM for not relisting and "shareholders" will sit tight, none the wiser, right?
That is a question, NOT an opinion.
Before anyone gets all histrionic, I'm not saying what they will or will not do. I'm just exploring this topic like everyone else is.
Mature responses are encouraged. Personal attacks....don't waste your time.
I'm a shareholder and I want them to relist as bad as anyone, I'm just searching for a legit reason for them to do so.
If you think it through objectively and without hysterics, all the reasons people are listing here for them to relist can also be said to be exact reasons for them to keep ownership to themselves and not relist.
If the company is growing and revenues are booming, what incentive do they have to share that if they don't have to? They can keep blaming KBM for not relisting and "shareholders" will sit tight, none the wiser, right?
That is a question, NOT an opinion.
Before anyone gets all histrionic, I'm not saying what they will or will not do. I'm just exploring this topic like everyone else is.
Mature responses are encouraged. Personal attacks....don't waste your time.
(1)
(0)