From an interesting post on the Yahoo Board :
greg - Being a long does not mean you must automatically toss arguments made by some concerning lack of transparency. To the contrary, when a CEO specifically states operational targets and there is a disconnect between his comments and follow-up from investor relations, does that not appear (at least on the surface) to be improper protocol?
I've been doing a lot of thinking concerning my investment in Plug. I remain a firm believer in their technology and their prospects for success. Nevertheless these are my areas that I struggle with:
1. There is a discrepancy between what Andy reveals in conference calls vs what is confirmed via PR. This should not be the case, and the company should seek communicate why this discrepancy exists and explain it to shareholders. I can understand NDAs, but I can't wrap my brain around using vague terminology such as "pipeline of customers to come" or "anticipate h2 costs to resolve in q3" or "we're invited to apply for 500 million DOE loan". Concrete wording is paramount.
2. There are is very little shared with investors concerning the actual costs of the many production plants now underway. If the company is blowing through hundreds of millions of dollars, should we not expect some revelation of that so we can do our own DD about the timeframe for ROI? Must we really rely on their "have faith" approach and grand vision? That seems unjust to those who do actual DD and don't appreciate having to "take them at their word"
Lastly, It would be satisfying for their CEO to not be the sole spokesperson. Now I know this is a petty grievance, but it would be a breath of fresh air to see a more enigmatic spokesperson and a little less time on "mad money" The spirit of Plug needs to come alive and be embraced by more, and as nice as he is, Andy doesn't give me strong vibes of confidence. Especially appearing on Jim Cramer.. lmao.
