Looks fine versus last year Johnny come lately complainer
And how was he breaching Fiduciary Duty by that definition. He is utilizing the assets of the company (cash, IP, ability to raise cash through private placements/contacts) in a prudent way to increase value of the company. Long term the company continues to use its assets to build value which in time has grown the PPS. Where has he not been in line with shareholders? Has he sold? No. Did he buy on the dip? No. So where has he breached fiduciary duty? The fact that the price went down on a poorly executed timeline? If that is the case you better be willing to call every CEO that misses on earnings to the carpet and say that they have breached fiduciary duty since a PPS can take 20% drops on that exact scenario. You can throw the terminology out all you want, but the history bears out no breach. PPS fluctuations in the short term do not reflect the Fiduciary Standard. Maybe a component if over the long term the PPS stagnates and the CEO continues to get massive bonuses and other compensatory measures that are not in line with ROE or performance.
It's your job to research a company. Not a CEOs job to hand it out on a silver platter. There are plenty of resources to do that work. You just can't be lazy and depend on others to hand you a free lunch.
Agreed. They erred. Does it mean they are pathological liars as some suggest? No. I'd love to see how many arm chair CEOs have not made mistakes in their own "company" of their household finances or lives.
Probably a better strategy but as I stated above management would have gotten pummeled for not being active enough or disclosing enough information, plans etc. it's a balancing act. Had it all gone to plan and everything did come to fruition, it would be at least $0.25 now. So they retrace. One morning there will be an announcement and we will find out the results then.
Agreed, but those folks on Thursday are scientists discussing data. Have you ever listened to Nouriel Roubini discuss financial markets? Brilliant man. Horrible to listen to. Lots of folks are certified geniuses but can't speak publically in an influential or pr based manner. They were at a scientific event, discussing scientific trials etc. so why would you expect a slick, polished, speaker when these guys and gals have their head in the clouds doing this research and are presenting it.
And as an aside, without the announcements that he has made in the past, do you think the price would have ever reached $0.19? Probably not. Lesson to learn, try not to be as transparent even though it is what shareholders want on non-revenue generating companies. So it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't balancing act. Better to take it private and keep it all to yourself then as a consideration.
You say deception, I say management execution failure. If they were deceiving (which is an intentional act) people, where was the benefit that accrued to them as a result of the act?
While you are correct about his fiduciary duty, where does this company stand versus one year ago in terms of value? Price up over 150% by just a quick look at the chart, even after the last two days. So is a CEO breaching his fiduciary duty by increasing the value of a company 150% over one year? I think that would qualify as being prudent. The fact that the stock dropped 40% in one day is awful, but have you seen price action on companies that miss their revenue estimates by just a penny or two or revise future earnings estimates? The market punishes them as well. Are you going to throw the fiduciary argument out there about those CEO's for a failure of execution of a plan? These small businesses are driven on news only and in this case it was bad, but not the end of the world. Rose on the hope, fell on the failure.
Just a different way to look at it, but good discussion.
Sell. Leave. Go away. Caveat Emptor. Incessant whining is boring. If you think they mis led to what benefit? No insider sales, no public offering based on alleged pump and dump. Who made money directly related to the Company. Did the Company bring in more funds if they were requiring LPC to buy according to their contract as the price rose? Good. More operating capital per share, less shares in the float. Who pUshed the price up anyhow? Traders on speculation.
Folks would be whining if management didn't put out any target dates. It is science and business. Timelines are just estimates. So they blew it with timing. The announcement was confirming data again based on the old methodology etc showing statistical significance of the idea and proving repeteviness. Don't come whining about sensitivity specicifity undersized/power of the trial etc. They are still working on the product.
If you feel cheated then so be it, but that is your problem for being greedy and not selling as the price increased. Biotechs, especially on OTC are fickle, high risk and dangerous investments. The reward can be awesome. Gerald thought they would get it done, they didn't, the price was punished. If he hadn't put anything out the PPS never would have gone to $.19 in the first
His lead pumper is RiskReturn, not Jason. How frequently does Jason write articles on this company or post on twitter? Relatively little. Learn the definition putz.
Well Mr Expert, what trials have you run? Obviously you know more than the company. Maybe you should go and help them since it is so easy.."