EVL::Do you think QMC has an obligation to address
Post# of 22467
(Total Views: 598)
Posted On: 02/05/2018 3:31:43 PM
EVL::Do you think QMC has an obligation to address it's shareholders with their current status at this time? I'm not implying anything I'm just asking.
As I see it now, we shareholders get a long shareholder letter around every six months now - (last Feb. and Oct.) which contains as much information as the company can give without (1) violating NDAs, (2) divulging information that could adversely effect a negotiation or (3) would give sensitive information to a competitor that could derail QMC's plans. Much of what was in the October shareholder letter was a continuation of information released in the February letter. Absent a new sale, deal or agreement with an OEM or partner, would an update give any information not previously disclosed?
Will QMC continue to give shareholder updates around every six months?
There is a chance we get a shareholder letter in the near future IF the lawsuit or SEC rules does not rule it out. Would it be advisable to issue a letter if the predatory lender would gain information they could use against us? No.
Squires himself said (paraphrased) not to mistake lack of communication with lack of action on the company's part. He acknowledged that he would not be able to be forthcoming to the shareholders, probably for the reasons I state above.
Since Squires returned in January 2017, his mantra has been consistent, (quote) We are completely focused on turning our existing commercial relationship into revenues. Isn't that exactly what we all want him to be doing? The company has noted in a 10Q that it had over 40 NDAs at the time. The last shareholder letter talks about working with and discussions with film makers, display OEMs, 'arguably the world's largest chemical company', and other fields for future development. At the same time, management is engaged with accountants and auditors, company lawyers and lawsuit lawyers, company research, hiring, purchasing and planning. That is a full-time job!
So, IMO, while some shareholders might like a daily chat with the CEO while they sip their Starbucks, the CEO feels his priority is rightly to work in the best interest of the shareholders, which means less direct communication with them than they would desire. If you want to judge him, try to imagine yourself dealing with all of the above on a daily basis. And, if you judge a man by what he does, not by what he says, then re-read the shareholders letter, and tell me why you don't think he is doing what he said he would do, which is, focusing solely on bringing in revenue. It is a detailed review of what the company is doing, without naming who they are doing it with!
All of the above would also be my argument against calling QMC a pump and dump. In the last year since Squires came back to lead QMC, there has been no hype, just announcements of accomplishments and the shareholder letters. It is clear that the company expects future business to move the stock up, nothing less, and there will be news when there is news. Your decision, and choice as an investor is whether you believe this and can wait, or if you don't and invest elsewhere.
As I see it now, we shareholders get a long shareholder letter around every six months now - (last Feb. and Oct.) which contains as much information as the company can give without (1) violating NDAs, (2) divulging information that could adversely effect a negotiation or (3) would give sensitive information to a competitor that could derail QMC's plans. Much of what was in the October shareholder letter was a continuation of information released in the February letter. Absent a new sale, deal or agreement with an OEM or partner, would an update give any information not previously disclosed?
Will QMC continue to give shareholder updates around every six months?
There is a chance we get a shareholder letter in the near future IF the lawsuit or SEC rules does not rule it out. Would it be advisable to issue a letter if the predatory lender would gain information they could use against us? No.
Squires himself said (paraphrased) not to mistake lack of communication with lack of action on the company's part. He acknowledged that he would not be able to be forthcoming to the shareholders, probably for the reasons I state above.
Since Squires returned in January 2017, his mantra has been consistent, (quote) We are completely focused on turning our existing commercial relationship into revenues. Isn't that exactly what we all want him to be doing? The company has noted in a 10Q that it had over 40 NDAs at the time. The last shareholder letter talks about working with and discussions with film makers, display OEMs, 'arguably the world's largest chemical company', and other fields for future development. At the same time, management is engaged with accountants and auditors, company lawyers and lawsuit lawyers, company research, hiring, purchasing and planning. That is a full-time job!
So, IMO, while some shareholders might like a daily chat with the CEO while they sip their Starbucks, the CEO feels his priority is rightly to work in the best interest of the shareholders, which means less direct communication with them than they would desire. If you want to judge him, try to imagine yourself dealing with all of the above on a daily basis. And, if you judge a man by what he does, not by what he says, then re-read the shareholders letter, and tell me why you don't think he is doing what he said he would do, which is, focusing solely on bringing in revenue. It is a detailed review of what the company is doing, without naming who they are doing it with!
All of the above would also be my argument against calling QMC a pump and dump. In the last year since Squires came back to lead QMC, there has been no hype, just announcements of accomplishments and the shareholder letters. It is clear that the company expects future business to move the stock up, nothing less, and there will be news when there is news. Your decision, and choice as an investor is whether you believe this and can wait, or if you don't and invest elsewhere.
(1)
(0)