I don't think that was the full answer. They have
Post# of 36568
(Total Views: 274)
Posted On: 10/29/2019 12:00:01 PM
I don't think that was the full answer. They have discussed it with Donohoe. But Donohoe has not brought up the topic with NAZ. They want to get the 10k, make sure all the other "boxes are checked", and then address that as the final piece of the puzzle.
Although I do not relish the uncertainty around this rather large missing piece, I do agree with the approach. If all the other boxes are checked, the possibility of any price "wiggle room" (using data from pre-20:1 div where the share count was radically different from now?) based on GNBT history or other criteria that add to our resume may be more accessible than if we have 3 missing pieces, as seems to be the case now.
============
He answered my question. Looks like the 2.00 in 2017 / 2018 was discussed with Donahoe, so that was good.
Although I do not relish the uncertainty around this rather large missing piece, I do agree with the approach. If all the other boxes are checked, the possibility of any price "wiggle room" (using data from pre-20:1 div where the share count was radically different from now?) based on GNBT history or other criteria that add to our resume may be more accessible than if we have 3 missing pieces, as seems to be the case now.
============
He answered my question. Looks like the 2.00 in 2017 / 2018 was discussed with Donahoe, so that was good.
(0)
(0)