I agree. Usually when there are two extremes, the true answer lies somewhere in the middle.
The way the "dearly departed" has portrayed the company and its officers, they are trying to self-destruct, which is not in anyone's interest, including their own.
Reading between the lines, S.Z.'s proposed solution would have probably diluted an already weak share value, and increased costs over the short term, without any payback guarantees over the long term. It could be (devil's advocate), that the company believes a less costly solution lies within the company itself, without the short term pain (-EPS)of the alternative.
Certainly one wonders why a major Silicon Valley player would have any interest in a small (growth potential) Canadian Company.
Perhaps, what lies at the heart of the matter, and the reason for this, most recent communication, is the compensation issue. There may or may not have been some unfulfilled performance issues which remain in dispute, but, just as with my investment in this stock, we are only speculating.
The choices available are that we can continue to side with departed players in the company, slam the stock, and make our worst fears as shareholders self-fulfilling (sink a leaking vessel), or, we can try and find a silver lining, and wait and see what happens when the dust settles (say a month after the suspension is lifted), and hope the company's fundamentals carry it to new heights (pump and paddle like mad).
As one who continues to hold stock, without any alternatives at this time, in the interest of self-preservation, I think I will avoid any knee-jerk emotional outbursts at this time, and, I think other current shareholders would be wise to do the same. |
