I think the answer lies in the fact that Kelly sti

I think the answer lies in the fact that Kelly still has something to offer, whereas Nader gave it his all and there wasn't really any value left to hold on to. Though I've always thought that an employee who is passionate about the job is usually worth having around. You just have to figure out where to stick them to maximize that skill while minimizing any downside. There was nowhere for Nader to go.

As far as ER's thoughts on the share price being low, I'm with Chowder that it doesn't really make sense. Of course they're getting more shares with the stock priced so low, and I would expect each of them to be, not just aware of it happening but excited that it's happening. It means more money when this things explodes. That's just math. What I don't believe is that they would want to delay the explosion for more shares. Their best interest lies in the explosion, both for monetary gain and for career stability. Those shares mean nothing if LL never gets to market, and nobody is going to accept years of share payments in lieu of money. There'll need to be a shiezen or a getting off the pot eventually. But I like that right now they seem fine with getting shares. I see that as confidence in there being at least a moderate explosion coming in the near term.

Also, they decided to be tight-lipped before it ever got to these share payments in lieu of salary. Now that they're getting shares and remaining tight-lipped isn't a scheme, it's just how it played out. In other words, their apparent lack of concern over daily share price started when they were still getting salaries and is just continuing now that they aren't. I don't think it's related.

But who am I besides this forum's foremost expert on shares given in lieu of salary and their respective effect on long term employment and generational wealth strategies for small to midsize Portland-based companies trading on the OTC?