listen carefully to the presentation at Dain again.....it helped me re-focus on why I'm here.
then down to NGEN, then click on the audio
I've listened to it three times and think I now really understand where we're headed.
After reading recent posts by Pbuchta, nanochipster, and trojanfla, I felt the need to put in my two cents:
1.Agree with Peter and the others that cutting-edge technology does not blow out the door overnight. The company is on the right track with its strategic placements. Many great businesses/technology gained vast market acceptance and share using this strategy.
2.I have complete faith in H.B., and agree that he earned his bonus: great partnership with Hitachi, great patents, and successful sales and marketing launch, he did what he said he was going to do.
3. One area that continues to nag me is the unparalleled departure of so many key officers in the past 19 months, who were very experienced and respected in the industry; CFO Burgess, Pres. Nova, SVP Kitchen, GC Leonhardt, VP O'Connell, VP Bers. The only officers remaining from the original group are Gallahue and Bromely. A few departures over time can have some viable explanations, but not this many.
4. In re-reading the proxy last night I noticed that Bromely is no longer SVP of Sales and Marketing. Why was this material event "announced" so surreptitiiously? When did it happen? What does it mean? Did I miss an announcement? According to all the public information released by the company the sales and marketing organization was suppose to be on target and hired a big team.
5. I think Blurtman has been way off base on his endless and relentless criticisms of Bers and Gallahue. Nevertheless, I am concerned over the fact that we have a president with no experience and technical background running this company. The market is getting very competitive, crowded and the funding well is dry. We are burning cash at a very high rate, perhaps some financial wiz can do some comparisions on our expense ratios compared to other bi0-tech companys. Also, no matter how you cut it, by comparision it seem like our stock performance is down in the bottom 10% compared to other bio-techs over the last year. Conversly,if we are paying top compensation we should be able to get a highly technical, experienced, well known person to take the helm.
6. On my proxy I am only voting for Peter Buchta.
I think this is fitting for Mr. Birndorf and for those of us who think like him and see his vision. It's the last portion of "Oh, Entrepreneur" a poem written by Edward and Darlene Lowe. He invented Kitty Litter�
"So pledge to the creed, Oh, Entrepreneur,
Bypass the negative, be patient with the structured,
Be passive with the limited, be understanding to those who are na�ve -
But never let your words, thoughts and deeds
Be smothered by those who cannot understand!"
The entire poem is here,it's good.
Blurtman is right, any company successful has marleting and sales folks who have been there and done it before--IN THE INDUSTRY
especiially a highly technical field such as this. WHat Nanogen has is a COO who is very good at start up companies but has never proven he can run a company post ipo.commercialization, a president who has very little accounting, marketing experience and no mol bio expertise, an exec VP of Mkt that rode Mol Dyn's Jay Flatley's tail and has shown he cannot successfully launch a product, another sr VP that has zero tech exp/degree, etc. What you see now happening is because these guys cannot execute themselves, they have fallen into the age old trap of adding headcount instead of fixing problems. 25 plus execs=at least 7 mil in payroll/bene's, and fat bonus'. Nanogen has an expensive product, low though put, no applications. Bottom line is that even if they had good mgmt it would be very difficult to launch the product---with the people they have it appears impossible.
If you tried to go there you'd get lost.
Your attempt to assert it is fine have no experience with the technology and markets of a biotechnology company at which you are an executive is pure nonsense and completely at odds with reality.
Look at any executive recruiter website. Look at the employment section of biotechnology company websites. Read the WSJ. Read the bios in th Yahoo company profiles.
It is an asset to any company to have executives with direct experience in their company's technology and markets. That is why most company's demand this experience and why most stock analysts applaud when a strong manager with that experience is at the helm.
Pbutcha, the only crime of ignorance is denying it. You are wrong and you are losing credibility.
By the way, since you weasled out of answering my question: Oximetry is the measurment of the oxgen saturation of hemoglobin in a sample of blood.
Sounds really relevant to SNP determinations, doesn't it. Really worth $500K a year, no?
You are missing the point. So much for spelling my name correctly too.
Your posts are quite enough evidence of your lack of understanding of how marketing and advertising work, so I won't bother going there.
The value of management is based primarily on judgement, and the decision making process, and a little luck. Not soley on past experience as you would like to have everyone else believe on this board.
You may, or at least seem,to know something about technology, but you are out of your league when you comment on marketing and business.
But please, do not take my word for it. Look on any executive recruiter website. I promise you, you will not find a company whose core technology resides in molecular biology, looking for a Stretegic Marketing person, or other exec, with an oximetry or blood gas background, for example.
Doesn't happen in the real world. Maybe in your fantasy world, perhaps.
Management lacking experience spells trouble for any company. The value of management is in the experience they bring to the table. If they come from unrelated business areas at less than successful companies, should that be swept under the rug? Just wondering.
By the way, do you even know what oximetry and blood gas diagnostic technology does? If so, please explain the relevance to SNP analysis.
It is quite evident from your previous posts that you know little, if nothing, about how the marketing end of the biz works, Blurt. If it were up to you, all advertising companies would be out of business because of poor management standards and practices. I can only laugh at your reasoning and wonder why anyone on this board would defend themselves against your unreasonable logic.