Boston's research

[boston745]

Until recently Sintx had 5 board members consistent with what a small company/startup would have.

To illustrate that thought, he points out that for boards of large companies, 12 members seems like a correct size. But, to him, 12 board seats would seem unwieldy for a small firm or a start-up. He believes for those businesses a five-member board works well.

Now that Sintx is moving to 10 members and a Chairman, thats the level of board members that should be in place for a company with revenues of 1+b. I have pointed out that Sintx total addressable market size is 330-340b aggregate; actually its greater than that as my market list is not comprehensive. The number i estimated was revenue of 800m a year if they only penetrated markets at 5% with a 5% licensing fee. That is an extremely conservative estimate as Sintx should, based on how superior Si3n4 is to other materials out there, penetrate alot more than 5%. By itself Sintx could bring in over 1bn in revenue through its partnerships. However a M&A event would only increase that revenue potential assuming the merger was with a company that had addition markets it participated in like NP Aerospace. Thus this justifies them moving to a board of this size...though this should have occurred post M&A imo.

Adis Vila, an independent director and president and founder of Vila & Associates, agrees that different-sized firms need different-sized boards. She believes nine to 12 directors are ideal for a company with revenues between $1 billion and $3 billion, while seven to nine members works for companies with less complex business dealings. However, she did identify a scenario in which it would be acceptable to house a surplus of directors in one boardroom.

https://www.directorsandboards.com/board-composition/board-diversity/singlehow-big-too-big/