| | | I posted this to the AG board earlier, I would like to here your take on this topic as well...
=============================================
I would like to ask what others think about the "call the office" issue.
While lamenting my losses and thinking about where this has went wrong I keep ending up back at what was said to investors over the phone.
I would like to preface this that I am not a seasoned investor by any means and haven't invested in many other venture companies - thats why I'm asking these questions to the board.
Have you had direct access to a CEO by phone with other companies you have invested in?
Have you had emails asking questions responded to by "call the office"?
I can't help but wonder if companies are allowed to dispense information to shareholders that's contrary to what plays out over the phone? Most CEOs are too busy to chat, but many here report long conversations with him on a regular basis.
The reports of what was said during these conversations is often contrary to what plays out (no dillution, Salazar, BFS timing, drill recalls for example). So is it fair to say that leaves it to either the posters are lying about what is said or overly optimistic information is being dispensed by phone?
How often have we heard posters say they called the office and feel much better about their investment over the years, and look where we are now? Should this optimism have been dispensed by phone? One only needs to look at the chart to see the optimism wasn't warranted.
I'm not bashing, but asking a serious question. How many of us invested more after a phone call or would have got out sooner if not for all the reports of 'call the office' information that was way more positive than the official NRs.
I can't count the times over the years that posters have said they feel so much better about their investment after calling the office... Should they have felt better? I don't think so personally, but what do you think?
I'm concerned that this method of dispensing information bypasses the cautionary notes. If you are told something by the actual president of the company, its natural to give it a lot of weight - he is in charge after all and he's taking time to talk to a lowly retail shareholder. But, is this fair or does it fit in with securities regulations? I don't know - I'm not a lawyer.
A lot of influence can be applied to a shareholder by "direct from the CEO'S mouth" information, and from experiences here on the board for 5 years - it HAS influenced the board (and thus shareholders) dramatically - even so much as some take it over what is actually said in the NRs...
If there isn't a law against this, - should there be?
Maybe this issue needs to be risen with the regulators? There are thousands of posts here to prove it has been happening and how board sentiment has been flexed by these calls (unless all the posters have lied, but I don't think thats the case). I think they could see how this kind of information sways investors and has caused losses to the investors and make a law if there isn't one already. At least something good could come of this?
I don't remember specifically - but didn't Golf state before he left the board that he was upset over phone information recieved just days before? I may be remembering wrong and will have to go back and look.
I just look back and read the NRs and cautionary notes and find a differing impression from verbal discussions. Also, the legally required cautionary notes are more often the harbinger of whats to come. Remember the cautionary note about dilution? Appeared right before it happened. Phone calls previously reported NO DILUTION PERIOD, in no uncertain terms just weeks before if my memory server correct?
Sorry for the long post - I had to vent my frustrations and am wondering if its just me that feels this way about this whole "investment adventure"?
I know Golf said he's gone, but if he for some reason reads this - I would love to get his take on this topic. |
|
