Joe, I always enjoy reading your reasoned opinion on any subject connected with TSIG. Don't be such a stranger. Parenthetically, allow me to compliment you on the masterful job you did the night the 10KSB came out. The discussion you held on the PP was Silicon Investor at its best. A tremendous contribution!
I beg to differ with you on the subject of Marty on the Board of Directors. Marty will bring the shareholders' viewpoints and concerns to the table. Is it a slap in the face to current management? Management may have brought that on themselves by being less than open and straightforward on several occasions. I'll ask the questions once again. Has management been deliberately deceitful to further its own gains? Or was management walking a tightrope in an attempt to avoid outright disaster? Your call.
Perhaps you could share some of your expertise with us again. How many people does the typical, average board have? Until very recently, the TSIG board had three—R. Gordon, Henry, and brother Michael Gordon. Can we unanimously agree that this was NOT a diverse, balanced board? Hwang is a good addition—but he's 27 years old and Gordon hired him. Based on his posts, I suspect that Marty can get a little feisty. Yet, he is obviously able to work in concert with other people. Marty has proven himself by making substantial contributions to the company. Marty on the board is a win/win situation for the company and the shareholders.
There is currently owed to R. Gordon a balance of $350,000 which can—at Mr. Gordon's option—be taken in cash or converted to shares at $.15. This is at a time that the shares are trading at $.35. I understand that Mr. Gordon's money was a loan of last resort, taken without any pledge of collateral. Granted he should receive an appropriate return on his money for the risk taken. Perhaps 12%, or 15% or even 25%. But 230% seems inappropriate to me and grossly unfair to the stockholders, particularly when Mr. Gordon has the overwhelming advantage of insider knowledge.
You alluded to our duties as shareholders as being supportive. I would say our duty is to provide capital for the company. Beyond that, I would point out that a company is structured somewhat like government—there is intended to be a balance of power between the parties which join together in an economic enterprise. It is NOT incumbent on the shareholders to sit passively by and accept any and every action proffered by management. I was slightly astounded by Paul Henry when he stated that he knew the 26 million shares "looked bad" but basically said it was a safety net in case things got bad again. We are going to pay Golin/Harris good money to convince people to buy this stock, but oh by the way they should just ignore this little 26 million shares of potential dilution? Management has totally lost its perspective on this issue.
You said that this is not the company you bought into last April. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point! I probably could not have dreamed up a company with as much potential as the real TSIG has at this point. It amuses me to hear about people who have owned the stock for a year and are thinking about selling. This company is 10 times more substantial than it was a year ago. Too bad to have waited so long and then miss out on the good things ahead.
Good to talk to you, Joe. Regards, Suzanne
|
