Listen, I hope I'm wrong, but the market reacted negatively to the call. Not the earnings, but the call. The market reacted negatively to LS conference appearance in Sept, and it did so again last week. He has a knack for saying the wrong thing, strange considering how carefully he tries to word each sentence.
LS should have been prepared for the question. It's sort of like the job interview question, "why are you interested in joining Company X?" If you don't have an answer to that one, forget about it.
I'm retiring because...Why? I've got a new business venture, I want to teach, I'm going to sit around in my pajamas watching TV and eating popcorn all day. Which is it?
If you read Scorekeepers recent post, he says there was a BOD-LS split. LS could have dispelled this impression if he had wanted to, but he didn't. Instead, he said he was going to "protect the investment" after retirement. What is your interpretation of that statement?
He can easily clarify the situation this week at the Benchmark events. If he doesn't, it only confirms Scorekeeper's split thesis.
No, what are you saying? It's clear that something is amiss. LS is very carefully telling the investing public as much. Scorekeeper has been proven right about all this.
Well, the "protect the investment" comment made it crystal clear. LS has got to stop his Jihad, because it's hurting the stock, as we saw Friday. Listen Larry, make a bid for the company or sell your shares if you're so unhappy.
Maybe. However, there really was a long pause before he said it, like he was saying it exactly as he wanted. He chooses his words very carefully, so it doesn't seem likely it " came out the wrong way."
He could have said "no immediate plans" or "new business venture." Listen, I wish he hadn't said it. The market was clearly spooked. Perhaps my interpretation is wrong. Hopefully it is wrong.
Are LS and the BOD at war? Does "protecting the investment" mean protecting it from the idiots who run the BOD? Does it mean LS is going to be battling from outside the executive suite? This war can't be good for shareholders.
No. I was right that there would be no deal with ALR. I think the situation with LS was made quite clear with his answer to the retirement question.
A fraud who is consistently right. Anyone who disagrees with THE CONSENSUS here must be crazy. Groupthink classic.
As I had predicted some time ago, the status quo suits both parties, for now. Therefore, there has been no need for an agreement, yet.
That's very interesting. Implies he was let go. Implies he doesn't trust the BOD. Implies he doesn't trust the new management. Indicates he's going to take action, such as force a sale or LBO this turkey. He probably only needs to convince a couple of Institutions.
When he says that he's going to "protect the value" he's really saying, " you can cut me loose, but you can't get rid of me." Is it possible that LS will attempt to buy this company, because it's obvious he's not going quietly into the night.
I have very serious reservations about this BOD. Also, the CFO embarrassed himself. When you appear before investors, you'd better darn well be prepared.
I was on the call. Listen, I think there's value here, and I think the stock will go up slowly. However, if someone offers $8 or $9, they should take it.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it will be submitted, although it's been moved from July to Oct to Nov already. Is approval a lock, assuming they actually get it in?
How is LS going to protect his investment if he's not there? He was forced out. He clearly doesn't want to leave. As regards ALR, CEMI has no way to distribute product without them. CEMI will take any deal, despite the brave talk. It's been 3 months, and no new deal with ALR. Regarding Labtest, where we the new products? Regarding FIO, what are 2014 numbers. Didn't the meet with FIO back in August? No resolution to Syph screen/confirm. No news on HCV, despite the fact that market is picking up.
DPP HIV in the US could be the savior, but we need some numbers (assuming the get the waiver).