JS, Information is not a bad thing.
The reaction to anything posted on these boards is up to individual reader. Links, facts, constructive criticism, informed speculation, and even whining may offer some insight to different readers at different times. The fact that this is a public venue offers some hope that baseless assumptions, unfounded speculation, and misrepresented facts can be corrected. Maybe not to the same degree as a formal peer review but this board in particular has done an excellent job of self regulation and has a lot to offer. Differing opinions are healthy - dismissal of information because it is unpopular is not.
> “Management does not need your, my, or anyone else's criticism or accolades from this board”
Management, if in fact they do read this, is only one audience. Management may not need, or want, our criticism (although I certainly hope that they would be open to it) but the rest of us, who are current or potential investors, are certainly entitled to know both the good and bad about past and current dealings. The fact is that there are past deals, however well intentioned, that may not have turned out to be the best decisions. Management doing its best does not necessarily mean that it is the best management. Since past performance is one factor for gauging future performance, the criticism, or “whining”, can be relevent for investment decisions. Again, if management is reading this, I am certainly more comfortable with them knowing that their performance is being discussed and scrutinized by us – most of which, non-coincidentally by virtue of being a shareholder, happen to be part owners.
There have been several valid issues raised over the last month especially in the area funding that should be of interest for investors – and management for that matter since securing funding is the responsibility of management. In my opinion, most of these issues, and questionable decisions, stem from management’s past and continuing overly optimistic view with respect to product development and ROI. Pick any year, any time, including today, and you will see that, irrespective of current status, they have fallen behind in their projections and have generally not met their objectives, which has led to a delay in revenue generation. This is not a one-time miss; it is potentially systemic and has had a direct impact on their funding decisions. One example was a few years ago, the company borrowed a big chunk of change and had something on the order of year to pay it off or it would default to 10% of all future earnings of the existing patent. (It’s my opinion that at the time cygx thought they could pay it back within the specified time.) As a result, even though we may be semantically debt free, we are possibly in the hole for close to 10% of all future earnings. Second example, a year ago the company projected the number of additional shares that would be needed to fund operations through revenue generation. Again, they underestimated the requirements, slipped the timing and as a result, felt it necessary this year to doubled the shares available for authorization. These actions should concern investors, who have the right to know if all other options had been examined and exhausted. (biph was presented by other posters as an example of a company who, for the time being, has apparently found funding that is more favorable for the company and investors than cygx’s approach.) For the other criticisms, investors also have the right to know if conditions leading to questionable decisions have been addressed.
The comment that a few posters have made “without these actions we wouldn’t be here today” assumes that we are at the best possible place or that other decisions would have put cygx out of business. That’s big assumption. There is an equal, if not better, chance that we could be much better off if different decisions were made or different funding found. I’m certainly not going to armchair quarterback and say I could have done it better but the subtle difference between a successful season and the championship can be the result of a few players or a few decisions. There is nothing wrong with sharing these ideas - you never know what may be in the breadth of experience here that has not previously been thought of or brought to managements attention. It is possible that they could get something useful here – if not, it's certainly easy to ignore.
JS, I’m not trying to but in on your temporary battle with peace – you guys are doin’ fine without me lol. I just want to continue to encourage open dialog. Different people get different benefit from this information even if some of it is perceived as whining. I certainly expect to chime in as my time allows, good or bad, and I appreciate it when others do the same.
As others have pointed out, being long does not mean you have to agree with every decision that has or is being made.
downr
AI
