Yes, there are shares issued for services and promoters, which is also a service. You assume there is incentive for these share holders to cash out which is not necessarily true. Hey, maybe some will and maybe some won’t, but it will depend on how the company does.
Mike Irving and Barry Hall are both involved with multiple companies, and there is nothing wrong with that unless they are competing companies (they are not). So, there is no bias. Many executives are on the board of directors for multiple companies.
When you say “companies like Roth” exactly what are you saying? Are you saying paying for services by issuing stock? Or is it something else? It is common practice to issue stock in return for services. The alternative is to borrow money from a bank or other financial institution or to get someone to loan money directly. Lenders would generally want some sort of collateral or guarantee that their money would be repaid, so if a company “like Roth” has no collateral, then issuing shares of stock is a good alternative.
Now that being said, the people receiving shares for services want the company to succeed just as any other investor would. These people who got paid in stock are the same as any other investor in that if the company succeeds shares will rise and they make money, and if the company does not succeed (ie fails) the shares will fall any they will lose money. The only difference is that regular investors bought their shares directly whereas service providers got there shares instead of cash. All shareholders want the company to succeed.
The idea that the service provides paid in shares would sell quickly when sock price rises above what they paid is just plain silly. They will sell (or buy) when they perceive the company is succeeding or not. For example, if I bought a fancy vase for $1 and then realized it was an ancient relic worth $5,000 would I be quick to sell it for $2? Hey, this would be 100% profit (not too shabby) or would I hold out for more?
As for Barry Hall, the fact is he resigned. People resign every day and its no big shame. To state that “but it would seem he was ousted due to the continued poor performance” is quite an accusation. Can you back this up? Is this fact or opinion?
Finally, does anyone else read these posts? If not, then I’m just wasting my time. Other readers out there, feel free to comment.
AI
