Marchio, let me try to formulate an answer to your question, and we'll start with the belief that the stock actually is under-valued (which is a reasonable presumption for all the reasons that Sgreg has provided quite eloquently on a number of occasions):
1. The company was given a bad name due to a Pump and Dump frameworked by the Investor Edge folks around a year ago, and it is hard to overcome such things.
2. The company via Mr. Knopick (and at the risk of irritating a colleague-poster here with a different opinion - I think that the man is doing a great job for the company) has been issuing press releases that focus on processes rather than answering key questions such as "overall (not just one product)were sales up this past quarter" and "is the company running through cash at ever-slowing rates such that dilution will be minimized."
3. This remains a family company, and the absence of outside directors gives the company less credence in the eyes of potential investors.
4. The reduced sales of Q2 versus Q1 was a shock to investors as was the BofI small but usurious loan taken out so soon after the Typenex tranche-based loan. It is hard to shock investors and then get them to bid up the stock.
5. There was a short term CEO a year ago by the name of Birnbaum, if I'm remembering correctly, and a fast-exiting CEO casts doubts as much on the company as on himself. Piling on this point, I'm guessing when the press release came out about expenses being down a bunch, the baseline for that included Birnbaum's salary, such that the reported 57% decline in expenses was a bit of a magnification.
Let me emphasize that I'm not a basher and don't want to be construed as such, but an honest question like yours deserves an attempt at an answer that's better than "the rest of the world is just a bunch of ignoramuses." Thanks for letting me have a shot at offering a response, and I hope that others wiser than I will pipe in with better answers.
