I agree that much of what you say is routinely ove
Post# of 22467
(Total Views: 499)
Posted On: 08/23/2021 3:22:45 PM
I agree that much of what you say is routinely overlooked, which is irrational behavior for an investor. $7.5 million, or even $15 million, is not a lot of money to Pasaca. It could scrap QTMM and easily salvage a value worth at least that amount.
Too few investors have actual business experience. They may have been professionals, but they weren’t businessmen. A business man knows the difference between a scrapper/promoter like Squires (or, a better known example, Elizabeth Holmes) and a serious manager, like Jim Walton or Donald Bren. A scrapper might get you to the dance, but you better get him off the floor before the music starts or the only thing you’ll have is a sh*t-show.
I was willing to give Squires a shot, obviously. That was implicit in the act of buying QTMM stock. He had his shot. He did a few things right, but the things he did wrong—all of which were avoidable if he had been acting responsibly—more than nullified those few achievements. He had his shot and he blew it. I think Pasaca could pick a name out of the phone book while wearing a blindfold and rest assured that QTMM would do at least twice as well as it did under Squires. Imagine how much better QTMM would be ding if Pasaca hired a CEO with the blindfold off.
One of the self-proclaimed “full glass” guys, I cant remember which and wouldn’t waste my time sifting through old posts, tries to build a case against my perspective by claiming it must be disregarded as empty self-indulgence because I don’t propose a specific “Plan B.” They don’t get it. Anyone—literally anyone—would be better. If Pasaca can come up with no process (a doubtful proposition), then I would accept picking a name out of a phone book. I am apoplectic that Squires did not take the SEC seriously. The small amount of research i have done into the issue trying to understand QTMM’s predicament shows that every professional in the financial industry understood what the bones rules were, what they were intended to accomplish and how serious the SEC was about enforcing them. Rerally. It would be a real challenge to find someone who would have handled the matter less responsibly.
He had his shot. He blew it. Air ball. Sh*t the bed. Advertise for his position. Conduct a few interviews. Pay very close attention to the interviewee’ s answer to the following question: “The SEC notifies you in writing that there has been a rule change and you have 6 months to get your filings up to date or your registration will be revoked. Do you: (A) Hire all of the help necessary to finish the documents and file them in a timely manner, making compliance with the SEC mandate a top priority, or (
Throw the letter away, file a bunch of other materials with the SEC convincing shareholders that their patience is about to be rewarded big time, refuse to mention the SEC’s threatened action or the fact that the deal you are waving in front of them may very well fall completely apart if QTMM fails to meet the SEC’s requirement as, then go silent when QTMM’s registration is revoked by the SEC exactly as the SEC said it would be?”
Too few investors have actual business experience. They may have been professionals, but they weren’t businessmen. A business man knows the difference between a scrapper/promoter like Squires (or, a better known example, Elizabeth Holmes) and a serious manager, like Jim Walton or Donald Bren. A scrapper might get you to the dance, but you better get him off the floor before the music starts or the only thing you’ll have is a sh*t-show.
I was willing to give Squires a shot, obviously. That was implicit in the act of buying QTMM stock. He had his shot. He did a few things right, but the things he did wrong—all of which were avoidable if he had been acting responsibly—more than nullified those few achievements. He had his shot and he blew it. I think Pasaca could pick a name out of the phone book while wearing a blindfold and rest assured that QTMM would do at least twice as well as it did under Squires. Imagine how much better QTMM would be ding if Pasaca hired a CEO with the blindfold off.
One of the self-proclaimed “full glass” guys, I cant remember which and wouldn’t waste my time sifting through old posts, tries to build a case against my perspective by claiming it must be disregarded as empty self-indulgence because I don’t propose a specific “Plan B.” They don’t get it. Anyone—literally anyone—would be better. If Pasaca can come up with no process (a doubtful proposition), then I would accept picking a name out of a phone book. I am apoplectic that Squires did not take the SEC seriously. The small amount of research i have done into the issue trying to understand QTMM’s predicament shows that every professional in the financial industry understood what the bones rules were, what they were intended to accomplish and how serious the SEC was about enforcing them. Rerally. It would be a real challenge to find someone who would have handled the matter less responsibly.
He had his shot. He blew it. Air ball. Sh*t the bed. Advertise for his position. Conduct a few interviews. Pay very close attention to the interviewee’ s answer to the following question: “The SEC notifies you in writing that there has been a rule change and you have 6 months to get your filings up to date or your registration will be revoked. Do you: (A) Hire all of the help necessary to finish the documents and file them in a timely manner, making compliance with the SEC mandate a top priority, or (
Throw the letter away, file a bunch of other materials with the SEC convincing shareholders that their patience is about to be rewarded big time, refuse to mention the SEC’s threatened action or the fact that the deal you are waving in front of them may very well fall completely apart if QTMM fails to meet the SEC’s requirement as, then go silent when QTMM’s registration is revoked by the SEC exactly as the SEC said it would be?”
(0)
(0)