"As I have indicated a number of times before, it is my opinion that additional help at FASC HQ is what has been and is currently needed.... for maximization of the...shareholder value of FASC"
That's not what I'm asking.
But it does raise the question of how, or more importantly why, FASC would ever pay for additional help to "maximise shareholder value" when they couldn't, or more likely wouldn't, invest the few thousand dollars it would have cost them to stay current with their SEC filings, which would have been the obvious and easy way to retain at least some shareholder value.
This is what I'm asking:
If FASC is indeed to have value in the future, why (and how) would Nichols' choose to distribute part of that value to those who held shares of FASC prior to revocation?
And given Nichols' deliberate oversight of his legal, moral and fiduciary duty to those same shareholders for (at least) the last three years, why do you believe this particular leopard would change his spots?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Upton Sinclair
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
H. L. Mencken
