Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. It appears that the company isn't going to put out anything further. It is my belief that I do not need to vote again, my vote will be counted as originally cast unless I go in and change it.
If I'm correct about this, I frankly hope that those who voted yes will reconsider to make it clear to the company that a different proposal is needed. Of course I also hope that whatever pressure the company is applying to those who said no doesn't persuade them to change.
I believe our first vote should send the company a message about how unhappy shareholders are with this effort. I don't care how receptive the company was to a visit by a shareholder, they need to be receptive to all of us. They could do so by hosting a webcast after the next quarterly, which should be in a matter of weeks. Such webcasts are perfectly acceptable to the SEC, many companies do them, so there should be no concern of being accused of hyping the stock by the SEC. If they really wanted to open things up, they could combine the quarterly with a Science Day, something other companies do where the scientists can discuss what they're developing with the investment public. My point is that they can do much legally that should support a substantially higher stock price, as long as investors view what they do positively. Such a webcast certainly should be available for replay for at least a few weeks after it's done.
I'll be honest, most such webcasts lately have been done before the market opens. As a California resident, I've almost always opted to wait for the replay, rather than getting up at 4 or 5 a.m. I much preferred it when such webcasts were done after the market close, but I've been told that most Analysts are East Coast based and prefer not to stay after the close until such webcasts end, and we do want to attract Analysts to listen in, and ask questions.
It's my belief that if the company were more open about what it's doing, if all trials planned to begin this year were posted in clinical trials, patents pending were discussed, and webcasts were held where Analysts, and perhaps major shareholders were permitted to ask questions, investors would put a substantially greater value in the stock price. By substantially higher, at first I'm only suggesting something like a quarter, but over time if they continued to be open about what they're doing, even if at times it included delays, the stock would gain in share price quarter over quarter. Of course progress must be seen, but over time it should become apparent.
I frankly believe that had the company been treating investors this way over the last few years, we'd have never seen prices close to what they currently are, and a reverse split would not have been a consideration. Certainly, the company wouldn't yet be eligible for the Nasdaq, but it would be high enough that a million share dilution would bring in over a million dollars.
Gary
If I'm correct about this, I frankly hope that those who voted yes will reconsider to make it clear to the company that a different proposal is needed. Of course I also hope that whatever pressure the company is applying to those who said no doesn't persuade them to change.
I believe our first vote should send the company a message about how unhappy shareholders are with this effort. I don't care how receptive the company was to a visit by a shareholder, they need to be receptive to all of us. They could do so by hosting a webcast after the next quarterly, which should be in a matter of weeks. Such webcasts are perfectly acceptable to the SEC, many companies do them, so there should be no concern of being accused of hyping the stock by the SEC. If they really wanted to open things up, they could combine the quarterly with a Science Day, something other companies do where the scientists can discuss what they're developing with the investment public. My point is that they can do much legally that should support a substantially higher stock price, as long as investors view what they do positively. Such a webcast certainly should be available for replay for at least a few weeks after it's done.
I'll be honest, most such webcasts lately have been done before the market opens. As a California resident, I've almost always opted to wait for the replay, rather than getting up at 4 or 5 a.m. I much preferred it when such webcasts were done after the market close, but I've been told that most Analysts are East Coast based and prefer not to stay after the close until such webcasts end, and we do want to attract Analysts to listen in, and ask questions.
It's my belief that if the company were more open about what it's doing, if all trials planned to begin this year were posted in clinical trials, patents pending were discussed, and webcasts were held where Analysts, and perhaps major shareholders were permitted to ask questions, investors would put a substantially greater value in the stock price. By substantially higher, at first I'm only suggesting something like a quarter, but over time if they continued to be open about what they're doing, even if at times it included delays, the stock would gain in share price quarter over quarter. Of course progress must be seen, but over time it should become apparent.
I frankly believe that had the company been treating investors this way over the last few years, we'd have never seen prices close to what they currently are, and a reverse split would not have been a consideration. Certainly, the company wouldn't yet be eligible for the Nasdaq, but it would be high enough that a million share dilution would bring in over a million dollars.
Gary
1
