MoneyBgone: Yes, I agree. But we are not talking shades of gray here. We are talking about calling black, white. What is ambivalent about the CEO in 2006 saying he could reach break-even in one quarter based on "orders in hand"?
The lies about contracts being signed when there were no contracts? The lies about big deals with thousands of seats?
For years and years, some investors were misled into thinking down was up, that failure was success. I agree sometimes success does take a while, but almost 26 years without a profit--while the CEO claimed, starting in 2003 he could hit break-even?
I don't think it was situational ambivalence--it was boldfaced lies masquerading as truth.
Even right up to the end of SKS's reign, he lied to board members, loyal longs and the public--saying there would not be a second reverse split--the 4:1 reverse split happened just a few days later. I don't know about you, but I don't see that as shades of gray.
To me, it was a desperate pathological liar trying to whopper his way out of the corner he had painted himself into. And all those who took SKS as his word, even after he had proved himself to be utterly untruthful--were shocked and surprised. Why? The public record was there for examination.
Remember how inconvenient truths were immediately labeled "past facts," as if that somehow removed the accuracy from the truth?
Remember in 2006, three weeks before the first reverse split--one of these leaders 'guaranteed' there would not be a reverse split?
The historical record is pretty clear. While there certainly were ambivalencies, there were many occasions of blatant,black-is-white untruths about the most important matters to investors.
Blue
AI
