Sorry, but IMO that is a load of bunk. There are very simple things any company can do to fight naked shorting, the predominant one being to increase profit and revenues. The current share price actually pretty accurately reflects Hemi's revenues. However, we've been told that increasing revenues is not Hemi's primary 'business plan'.
Secondly, any company that takes their O/S from 36M to 65M within a year darn well better be concerned with their share price. Any so called 'business plan' that supposedly does not depend on share price while simultaneously using shares to grow the business is a very poor business plan, IMO.
If they lay out that big expenditure to try and stop the naked shorting, not only is there no ROI on that money, but it is compounded by leaving less money available to acquire leases, and/or prove up reserves.
If the share price was anywhere near what some folks imply that it should be then we could have recovered from floods and done all the past years leasing with insignificant increases to the O/S. How much more leasing and going after 'oil industry priorities' could they have done with a share price over $.50.
But no, instead KAA's investment got cut by the same percentages as the rest of us. I won't even touch the question of whether or not KAA will fix that little percentage ownership problem for himself. No sense making accusations a head of time, I am willing to wait to the end game to see what he does with the remaining 35M shares.
Hemi management has EVERY reason, EVERY incentive to see their plan through in the best way possible.
Having said all that, could they really have done any differently? Maybe not, they may want the best way possible, but do they have the ability? Did they get hamstrung by circumstances right as they were really getting rolling or was the 'business plan' flawed from the beginning? I'm certainly not the best one to judge, but I am getting really sick of hearing that the share price isn't important to Hemi's business plan.
