Paul, I was being charitable -- 'tis the season. Besides, Jim already had my choice of .15 and I didn't want to copy. ;-)
I'll grant you that on this occasion, we have differing opinions on appropriate or acceptable levels of performance. I believe the product should be in demand by now. And if the product were in demand -- due to its unique nature, its reliability, its performance, its cost-effective use and its adaptability for wide-spread applications, industry would have pounced on it. We certainly had the exposure, I believe. And the investment community would have recognized its proprietary aspects and it would be prized in many portfolios by now. I believe this would have been true if on-the-near-horizon events had proven as profitable as information lead some to believe.
Who among us didn't feel that way back in 95/96? I see no reason to expect less at this time if I haven't lost faith in the product and its purported potential. I don't think many of us thought it'd be at .08 two or three years later. I know loyal supporters look upon a dim view with disdain. But let's face it, we can't expect many to be elated at this stage, particularly those who've foregone other investments while watching this one dwindle to the extent that it has.
I believe the charts illustrate the situation when back in 95/96 folks were responding to the claims. If I recall, faith even endured then recent lawsuit information. It just seems to me that a sustained lack of results has lead to the sad discussion we're having now regarding .20 being overly optimistic, and also to the difficulty they seem to be having securing additional funding.
Now don't get ticked at ol' Tom -- that's just my view. |
