i knew that admission would draw fire, and probably rightfully so.
but:
my point about "it works in the lab, it should work pretty well in the real world" is that it's not just naive, it's almost axiomatically wrong. especially in field electronics, pharmaceuticals, and software.
are you saying that all analysts are liars who tout stocks without any regard to the facts, just to squeeze a couple points here and there for their clients? i understand the sentiment, but they're not all like that. and in AMTX's case, how clever of them to get BCTel to collude by actually signing a purchase contract.
i may not understand the financials fully, but i do understand feduciary responsibility and SEC safe-harbor rules regarding management's forward-looking statements. If AMTX management said that operating capital is not a problem and they were lying, the penalties would be huge.
finally, there is nothing to preclude AMTX from doing a secondary offering, and while it would dilute, it would put to rest the cash burn issue. the underwriters would also likely initiate coverage of AMTX which would help too.
sorry if my "naive" comment stepped on toes, but it's true. engineering ain't that easy.
mark |
