I know this post will run counter to what some of the most respected experts on this board are espousing and it is merely my opinion based on what I observe and drawing from my 30+ years of experience in corporate finance with Fortune 100 companies.
As of today, and I doubt this will change in the coming days, I plan to vote "YES" on all proxy items. My basis for this decision is as follows:
I have confidence that Thomas Steipp is doing the job he was put in place in August 2010 to do. We have all of the partnerships firmly in place to commercialize LQMT's intellectual property. He started in a huge hole, knew what he was dealing with, set a course and timeline and has done what I think is an excellent job of executing the strategies to drive the company forward. Yes, there may be some lag on some fronts, but that is to be expected when you are dealing with a situation as dire and complex as the one he started out with. Hindsight is 20/20 and unfortunately, Steipp and company did not have the benefit of hindsight as many of the critics after the fact have had.
The criticism of Steipp and the BOD that I have read in here is kind of like a good fictional movie ... 10% based on fact, 90% based on fiction (or in our case, speculation, rumor, misinterpretation etc).
I personally think it is too soon to start a shareholder revolt. The BOD and executive team have made recommendations in the proxy materials that they think are appropriate and necessary to continue moving the strategies along the timeline. Steipp has not even been the CEO for two full years yet. He has earned the confidence of shareholders through his performance to date to trust that he knows what he is doing. True, we have no customer revenue to speak of through the 1st two quarters of 2012 but that is not inconsistent with what he has been saying. We should expect break-even levels by the end of 2012 is what I have understood. Even if we lag some from there, I am still OK with how this is unfolding.
We have a very vocal and what I hope is a minority in here that would like to be shareholders functioning as the CEO. Many negative assumptions about intent have been repeated in here to the extent that some might even now just be accepting these assumptions as fact. I hope not ... but it happens. We all need to formulate our own opinions based on the FACTS that we see before us ... not on the strong opinions of a few self proclaimed experts who frequently criticize the efforts of a CEO and BOD who I observe have been working diligently since August 2010 to fix what was broken and build a sound company, with strong relationships with credible strategic partners.
Sorry for the length of the post but I couldn't figure out a way to say what I had to say any more concisely.
Good luck to all and here's to a bright future for LQMT!