Well, i didn't expect much and got just that.
I emailed Stephnie Diaz today trying to get a straight Yes or No answer to the big question.
This is the gist of the exchange...
me: I would like simple, honest, and straight-forward answer to this question.
1) YES or NO. Has the manufacturing problem been fixed and are we back to producing product as of this writing? Again, YES or NO.
If yes, on what date did we resume manufacturing?
If no, what is the estimated date of restart?
SD reply: Avid is a publicly traded company. We do not provide selective updates to individual investors. Selective disclosure is illegal. While I am not able to provide selective updates, we will be addressing this matter during our upcoming earnings call in June.
so there you have it. Who knows? I'm sorry but i just have this thing inside me that thinks a shareholder has the right to know such simple, basic information concerning the company he's invested quite a bit of time and capital in.
I have ZERO confidence the company will directly state on what date the shutdown occurred and on what date it resumed manufacture. I have equally little confidence any of those analysts will ask anything specific of them either.
fwiw...
The following is the post bfiest responded to that was taken down, minus the question i asked of someone (and i am assuming the reason for deletion) who questioned me but who's post still, remains.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
i think that's the point, bfiest. It should not be left to an individual's own interpretation. Company statements should be made as so not to be misunderstood. There are sometimes reasons people make unclear statements and that reason is always to mislead. Not saying that is definitely the case here but there is a history. Wouldn't you agree?
We have lived through over a decade of ambiguous statements by the last bunch too. Remember how many of the posters here were so quick to demonize anyone that questioned those? ("Bavi performed as expected but we're shutting down the trial"... "In the coming months ______________" (fill in the blank), to name a few. How did those turn out?
Those that had reason to distrust their wishy-washy, not-quite-direct statements were ALWAYS right. Please observe the PPHM/CDMO pps chart over the last 19 years for verification. As yet this current crew cannot be said to be any more forthcoming than the prior crew. So anyone that questions muddy statements like the one they gave have good reason to do so. And again - i'm not saying the statement is right or wrong or true or false - i'm saying as written it COULD be another misleading tactic.
Why say "continues to" in that statement? They HAD NOT been continuing ANYTHING since the mysterious equipment failure, correct? Didn't we shareholders pay dearly for that when that little nugget finally leaked out? So what gives them the right to say "continues to" when the process had been completely shut down?
WHEN was it back up and running if it is?... How long was it down exactly?... Are we such schleps that we neither deserve to know nor deserve the right to ask that and get direct answers?
Again, not aimed at you, bfiest. In fact i thank you for asking the question of them. The logic of your asking why would a new guy like Compton mislead is valid... but on the other hand new guys are usually guided by entrenched ones early on.
P.S. i decided to email a reply:
Fair enough. I'm not looking for any info that other owners of the company shouldn't deserve.
This being the case then, is the company planning on releasing to all shareholders an update with these important and specific questions answered?
Having to wait until the next CC is asking a bit much of your patient shareholders, IMO.
Please relay our concerns to the proper channels.
Thank you Stephanie.
