Chinarab,
I read through the questions and I agree there is fair substance within them. Moreover, in our current form we have evolved into the company we are through historically demanding corporate transparency on the part of our BOD. Asking ‘why are we doing things this way?’ is always a reasonable shareholder request and management should always be prepared to explain why with clarity.
Having said that, and in view of the latest news release, I can’t help but feel, in their entirety, there is a persistent tone of negativity that pervades the collective text of the questions (e.g. what happened to quantum dots?, your management cash burn rate is greater than the previous management, great news but where are your sales?, you intended to extract 990 tonnes – why haven’t you?, what happened to Manchester? Did I mention, where are your sales again? … and it goes on and on). As I said there is fair substance in most of the questions, but in their entirety (and how they are worded) there is a persistent negative tone. It’s not hard to conclude who the significant authors of the questions are – and they are ALWAYS negative.
I would much prefer some well-deserved pats on the backs for our management team, a positive shareholder perspective on guidance moving forward (because I think many of us feel very positive about the future), balanced with ‘hard ball’ questions that get at the heart of why we have moved in specific directions. So the problem for a shareholder like me is the persistent negativity in tone of the text in the questions has the effect of grinding down my level of potential support – whereas if the tone softened and worked to achieve greater balance I’d be more inclined to be supportive.
Yes, we have a very long way to go, but once again, GO ZEN, and hats off to the hard working management team we have working on our behalf (Smiles - throw in a tough question here and I'm ok with it). |
