JohnSamuel, I understand your viewpoint but I don't agree with it.
First, let's just look at some top problems I have with the company:
1. The large bonuses for going to Nasdaq. I already know what they will say about it. I've already read the posts from people that asked him directly about it. I found his answers to be unsatisfactory.
2. The ASM "commercial acceptance" used to justify not going over the prior year goals that EVERYONE was anxiously anticipating in May. I already know what he would say about it. I've already read the posts from people that heard him elaborate in Belgium. I found his answers to be unsatisfactory.
3. The reliability issue and data sets. I already know what he will say about that. It will all fall back on trust. I find his answers to be unsatisfactory because I want EXTERNAL VALIDATION, NOT INTERNAL EXPLANATIONS.
4. The Dec 4 letter and expectations raised. We already know what he would say about that. Some of us are ok with it. I am not.
5. Hurdles, if any with the technology. If there were no hurdles remaining, a shareholder already would have reported that. You KNOW he has been asked.
Do you see the issue now? This is a public company. He cannot divulge something to me that he hasn't divulged to everyone. I know his positions. I do not find his answers to be satisfactory.
I have a different JUDGEMENT CRITERIA than you and others do. It is as simple as that. To microchips point about developments and more recent progress -- it is POSSIBLE they are better positioned, but they CHANGED the letter to say "planning to implement". Do you think I need to ask him why he did that? Really?
I don't. I think it is obvious. What will he say about anything under an NDA? Nothing. What will he say about not naming a Foundry? We already know the answers to it. What will he say about transceiver relationships? We already know. He has given us what he wants us to know and it is sorely lacking. I"m surprised few admit that they actually have gone BACKWARDS in terms of revealing information: It seems the more time goes by the less they are willing to tell us...that's a very bad sign as it takes on some of the characteristics of a scam.,,you can only hope the "we must be MORE secretive now" angle is true and not a guise.
Some one-on-one meeting won't change the messaging. It will only allow me to see a VIBE...Some think that means everything. Ask Bernie Madoff clients if that is how THEY felt and they will say the same thing: We felt empowered and confident to trust this man. I'm not saying Dr Lebby is a Madoff. I'm saying the preponderance of the evidence makes such an excursion a real waste of time. It's for believers. Skeptics won't get anything new to change their minds imo.
While I"m some 90% confident I'm right, I could be wrong and time will tell. But a meeting face to face won't change anything for me. A concrete and meaningful announcement is required.
AI
