Fellow Gravis Shareholders:
Although I post here quite infrequently, I do read the thread regularly. I keep current on Gravis' situation since it is my single largest position. Though I am normally quiet, I feel compelled to express my discontent with the current goings-on and to offer my support of Norman Levinson for a seat on OUR board.
We are all now acutely aware of Gravis' inate ability to make nothing out of something. For example, it is difficult to fathom a product getting better reviews than our dear GrIP, or to fathom a stock reacting more poorly to such reviews. Secondly, the GUS PnP that OUR COMPANY makes (and other companies accomodate in their software) is unbelievably hard to purchase!
Products aside, I don't feel very comfortable with the Nam Tai deal. Given that the people that WE authorize to make this deal go through (on the Gravis side) don't seem to give a RAT'S ASS about YOUR PIECE of the company, what makes you think that the new board members from Nam Tai will?
Further, I cannot say whether this business about the proxy being sent at the last legal nanosecond is intentional or not, but it would be very typical of the garbage that we routinely endure from OUR employees. Example: In Canada, companies are allowed 120 days to release their year-end earnings report. By my calendar, May 30 is 120 days after Jan 31. Check for yourself (and correct me if I'm wrong), Gravis wantonly disregarded the LEGAL LIMIT for the timely release of this report. Considering they released a preliminary version of the figures in the April 3rd press release, what does that say about OUR company's ability to handle routine administrative tasks?
Shortcomings such as these (of which I have made a VERY short list) continue to haunt OUR COMPANY, and all we can do is sit back and wonder what the problems are...and pout about the fact that we can't fix them.
But what if we could? Remember that when you bought your AED stock, you bought a piece of the company. Your proxy gives you a chance to make a vote before Nam Tai's shares dilute the value of our opinions. Together, I'm sure we can come up with a significant enough percentage to make a statement -- if not a change. I am NOT trying to make this a "Campaign for Levinson '96" speech, but let's consider our options.
We have the opportunity to put someone on the board who has the company's best interests -- and OUR best interests -- in mind. Norm formerly held a high level position in OUR company, has a very substantial investment in OUR company, and knows Gravis and the industry about as well as anyone. Now, it's no secret that Norm and Mike Cooper aren't exactly drinking buddies or golfing partners...for that matter Norm is probably still on Cooper's shit list...BUT -- I still believe, and maybe you'll agree, that having a *level-headed* version of Norm Levinson on the board is our best move. Certainly Mr. Cooper and rest of the board would give equal consideration to a considerate, courteous, reasonable, measured version of Mr. Levinson, right? With all due respect Norm, it is definitely not a question of your ability or knowledge, but your intensity and patience. I have no reservations about having you on the board if you agree to play well with others. Again, no disrespect intended.
I strongly encourage every shareholder to follow the procedure that Jim G. described in posting #714. The time factor is critical, so be sure to send it to the address Jim listed and not back to your broker. The return receipt is also an excellent idea. Flames/replies welcomed.
Regards,
D. Jim Taylor |
