RE: That was good, by Thomas A. Burke
Thomas adds to reader value,
"You put into words what many of us have felt here."
Thank you, Thomas, your words are heartfelt.
I strongly support IESV and strongly believe this company will
be very successful in the future. However, always a however,
the board of directors, although intelligent and well educated
people, are displaying a lack of knowledge of how our stock
markets operate and, most important, how investors view and
react to specific types of news.
This Cornell lending, as you write, is worth cow crap. No need
to comment on this; we know of Cornell for years.
Like you, I view the public bonds and various government
related funding as very positive. This is a strong selling
point for this company. Another positive point is "green"
is the latest rage and will remain so because of pollution
and high energy costs. Clean renewable energy sources is not
only popular but is a must in our polluted modern times.
Intrepid has the right idea and has proven an ability to
create a good and beneficial technology which solves energy
needs and cleans up our environment; cow manure is a serious
problem and a serious pollution source.
This technology, these efforts by Intrepid, all are aimed in
the right direction and are very popular. Another however here,
however the board of directors, typical of many tech companies,
are engineers and scientists, to be respected, but are not
stock market professionals nor financing professionals; they
have not a single clue how to "sell" their company.
Retaining MDB Capital Group is a step in the right direction.
This company does not have a bad reputation like Cornell. There
is a need for funding, clearly. What is important is from which
company funding is derived. Cornell is a jinx, an albatross
about the neck of Intrepid.
My thoughts are Intrepid will eventually become a leader in
this digester technology and, hopefully, will be contracted
to design and possibly build digesters, elsewhere, perhaps
servicing diaries on the move from California to Texas and
the region.
Returning to this reverse split, you, I and readers all know
a reverse split is almost always a bad move. Most often a
reverse split is based upon a false belief a higher share
price will attract more investors. This simply is not so.
Those of us who are serious and seasoned investors and traders
look at fundamentals and technicals, especially fundamentals.
We want to see the company bucks or potential to make bucks.
A reverse split changes nothing and does not improve a bottom
line, not in the least bit. Quite the opposite, a reverse split
almost always creates a negative perception amongst the public.
I am betting on the "potential" of this company. Should this
reverse split be approved, my bet will be removed from the
poker table, and my ante is large. No doubt many others will
pull back in thier bets; nobody likes a reverse split.
Clearly I have voted "NO" on this reverse split. I also voted
to have Dennis Keiser removed from the board; he is way too old
and way too addled to serve, effectively; he is a fossil relic
of the Old School of Thought.
I urge readers to send in your proxy vote regardless of how
you vote on issues; your money is at stake.
Purl Gurl |
