InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 16
Posts 1898
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/12/2016

Re: pmontx16 post# 100362

Thursday, 11/14/2019 3:55:58 PM

Thursday, November 14, 2019 3:55:58 PM

Post# of 140474
I don't completely believe that one team is necessarily better than another at securing funding. I do believe that the current team had a better understanding than the prior team of what is required to get a medical device to the market.

But my questions (re-stated below) aren't who is better; my questions are "What can they do?" and "What actions can they take?" (which is really a re-statement of "What can they do?" but tries to drive home the point of the question). Instead, people seem to want to answer a different question, one that I did not ask, and one which allows people to cast blame and point fingers, rather than propose solutions. I'm looking for solutions, specific actions which any team, new or old, could do to fix this situation.



Original questions, verbatim:
What do you think new blood can do differently? What specific actions can they take to secure funding for a company whose stock is so strongly suppressed by rapid-turnover investors?


Message in reply to:
There is a reason for the rapid turnover. No?
Well it's due to managements mess with all factors of this company - hence new blood would "possibly" be a better ensemble to obtain funding.

Not sure why you don't see that... I'm pretty sure you would acknowledge that the old blood killed funding, so now what are you getting at.

You really believe the old blood gets funding, and new doesn't. Why?