Oldtimeinvestor, I appreciate your status assessme

Oldtimeinvestor, I appreciate your status assessment, along with Drugman’s thoughtful counterpoint. They seem to express our choices in how to look at this.

I am not sure I understand the kerfuffle of whether the “company has been sold”, why it has surfaced as something ambiguous or controversial, why to say so amounts to spam hyster, or why it would be problematic with SEC. Isn’t that what 51% in return for $15 mill and slew of other commitments means? We all read the Pasaca agreement and accompanying appendices submitted to SEC, and we all concurred when 50-plus percent voted their proxies in favor of Steve’s subsequent proposal to us. Maybe I am missing something?

The elephant in the room in both descriptions— your’s and Drugman’s fine counterpoint — is why has Steve been so silent when it comes to reporting? That is a head scratcher. All things being equal, people who have given so much to sustaining the business and its operation deserve as much. But there’s the rub. Are all things equal? We know from third hand accounts that a lot is going on. It is clear there is stuff to report. Why isn’t he?

To me there are a number of reasons that could explain why Steve is not keeping us informed, at the least at a frequency approximating updates prior to delisting. They may be described as:

1) Self Indulgent: Steve doesn’t keep us informed because he doesn’t have to. With no one looking over his shoulder there is no reason to make the effort to convey how things are progressing.

2) Cost: It is expensive in time and money to produce a shareholder letter. Every word and paragraph must be scrubbed and assessed for implications and consequences to make sure they are not misleading, incorrect, or betray sensitive information or information not ready to share. No false impressions. Often successive interactions are vetted by multiple parties.

3) Strategic — Operational or Market Oriented: Strategic Operational decisions are those having to do with the status and viability of the company and our relationship to it. Pretty much anytime, but particularly when the stock is not trading, there shouldn’t be anything in this category of decisions that is out of bounds for sharing with shareholders. This is the type of thing investors are most concerned about, if only for sake of reassurance in a time of uncertainty. Strategic Market Oriented decisions are those having to do with business development and the generation of income. These are often business sensitive. Constraints on reporting in this area would share the same qualities and features both before and after de-listing. Reporting can occur in broad and general terms to give a sense of the contours of activities and changes in direction. Steve has been doing this for years and knows how to do it.

4) Awkward: These are things 1) Steve wished had gone differently, but for whatever reason, whether his own or exogenous, did not; or 2) things that are taking longer to mature or develop than hoped or planned. There is nothing overtly uncompromising or untoward about these, but neither are these strong markers of success, at least for now. Why report on them if there is no need?

5) Its Already All Been Said: Steve has already told us what he plans to do — get the reporting up to date and re-list the company. In documents filed with SEC he described his plans to uplist to a bigger exchange. Until he is ready to pull the trigger on both there is not much to report. He has reiterated his intentions in response to individual requests for information in public forums such as Facebook and LinkedIn. Whether shareholders are informed more often is not going to change anything with regard to the timeline for achieving these objectives.

6) Where Does It Stop? Once you start down the path of explaining why things are already taking way longer than planned there is no good place to stop. This is another way of saying there is no easy way to condense the big picture into a simple answer. Maybe if there is no compelling need to report it is better to wait until there is something compelling to say.

7) Survival Too Tenuous: Any statement of progress or even description of activities may overstate the possibility of success at this point in the game. With so much still in flux why give a misleading impression of stability when saying nothing is just as easy? Since there is no pressure, better to wait until things come into focus on a path to up-listing.

Any one of these could be the reason, or none of them. Or some combination. Per our usual, we have no idea. If investors were to have a say, probably a good baseline is the same frequency and standard of reporting that occurred prior to de-listing. It worked then, what is to think it shouldn’t work now?

What investors really want is two things: reporting, but in addition, reporting that shows progress. Even if it is only reassurance, or especially if its only reassurance, that is enough. We don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. If no reporting is somehow coupled with the possibility that this is more likely to succeed, investors would likely say, sure, take all the time you need. But anything short of that, reporting along the lines of what Steve has already established would be a good thing and greatly appreciated.