From what is known regarding salary. You could have ended it on the sixth word.
Based on known percentages of operating costs, cash burn and new sources of revenues. I’m sure there are a lot more reasons to justify a zero salary. I first tried to find reasons for a salary.
But then the decision against one, the final straw was the taking of money from the company by way of salary to buy more shares at rock bottom prices to profit off of, to me, seems like a conflict of interest. Especially, when outsiders never are afforded to do the same thing while those in charge are responsible for driving down the share price in the first place by way of performance, causing more portfolio losses on paper to Al outside shareholders, in my most humble opinion.
Talk about double dipping, (referring to their free of cost stock options) For what they are worth. Those shares purchased should have been equally distributed to outside shareholders to help lower their burden first before fattening up an executives portfolio.
If you can draw a salary off of this non profitable company and have an excess of ($50,000) fifty thousand dollars to buy more shares from that salary. Then you can distribute a dividend in shares to those you are supposed to be working for! The outside shareholder!
My apologies to those in LQMT who earn their salaries.
Just my 0.05 cents to add to the discussion.
Good luck to you.
