SOOO, you are going to continual to try to shift the questions back to me instead of answering the ones I have been asking you? I will gladly answer yours after you answer mine.
What are your motives?
The question remains...what is your motive. First it was talking about suing the company. Any one with a lick of common sense knows only lawyers would benefit from that and that type of move often will cause share prices to sink. Now, it almost like that move didn't work and it is time to try something else. Claiming a company is on the verge of bankruptcy will often cause investors to get skirmish. Back to the question...what is your objectives?
But I don't believe you believe they are dead either. Do you? So if you don't believe they are dead, that leads to your motives of all the "they going bankrupt" post.
I am willing to publicly admit, again, I made a mistake increasing my holdings after Mr. Ramey death. I will also admit I tried to wear rose color glasses with this company and decided that is a #$%$ poor way to invest. My personal belief is the niche they are carving out for themselves is to small to be of significant. Yes I think they are profitable and I have ever reason to believe you do too.
So what are your motives for all the bankruptcy BS? To drive prices down? Trying to rattle a few cages? Tell the board.
Isn't Lighthouse a private company? If so, I think you might be on to something. It would be a good and inexpensive way to go public.
LOL, with the little that we know, what has caused you to believe they are in any worst fiscal shape than they were three years ago? In fact, the last two snippets, lead me to believe they are in better shape.
I understand your frustration, but I think we need to take UDWK off the fast return and place them on the hold and don't look returns.
Hee hee hee, you respond to joke with bigger joke, yes?
You read 10K and10Q, yes?
You read historic price charts, yes?
You joke make me laugh big.
I have been loosely for close to ten years and my conclusion is the niche they carved out for themselves is to small to be meaningful.
I haven't seen anything in a couple of years that has pipped my interest and never did devote much time to this company, but isn't this their typical pattern on conference? It seems to me that there's only a couple periods of time a year that they announce conferences.
Honestly, I don't see this company any more risky than when I first started following them in '07 and from what little I can gather on financials, it has greater potential. (Having said this, I would not put a dime more into it's stock until I see some indicator which tells me six months to a year will make me a decent return.)
Your correct. I realized my error and was on my way to correct it.
I should of inserted "positive" in front of changes.
To me the pertinent question is, has there been any change in management/ BOD treatment of retail investors in the past decade?
What I am trying to wrap my mind around to is (A) How did UDWK go dark without a vote of shareholders, (B) Why haven't shareholders needed to vote on board of directors, (C) Why haven't any matters been summited to the vote of shareholders? As far as I can tell voting matters, (B) and (C), aren't effected by de-registering.
The only thing I can think of is there is a group of shareholders (who control over 50% of the company) voting on all matters. If there is some other way, I sure would appreciate someone explaining it to me. (and I am sure others are as confused as I am.)