About Bashing...
I understand the issue with bashing. Bashers are out to knock down the price of a stock and they go off bashing without any supporting evidence.
However, it seems to me that people with legitimate concerns are labeled as bashers and that their concerns are never discussed.
I have a concern about the 483 billion OS, and I was surprised to find utter denial by many shareholders. I value all the opinions on this board and I was looking forward to some enlightening discussion. However, instead of a discussion about the impact of such a number and the future of the company's share structure, and the possiblity that the company screwed us, the response was that the number can't be trusted, because it wasn't in a PR, and that those who brought it up were bashers.
I believe that we can trust this number because it was confirmed by several sources that DR. Glenn had sent the info in, and, as it was stated by many, he HAD to file that number at least 10 days in advance. We have a good lawyer who brings things in under deadline, therefore, he filed 20 days in advance. To wait for ALL of your info to come out in an official PR, is a dangerous idea to me. There's a thing called DD, and most of the time, it has to do with digging stuff up that is NOT in a PR. Why? Because PR's are always about positive things, and when they aren't positive, the company tries to slant them that way to fool you. Can you imagine CMKX releasing a PR that said: "We are excited to announce that the OS is 483 billion. Thank you, and a great future to all!" You aren't going to hear about the negatives in a PR, and the negatives are always more important than the postives when investing.
Personally, I enjoy hearing all of the negatives about the company. It tells me that we have a healthy community of investors here, who are concerned about things, and who are doing their research and raising concerns and keeping the company in check. We need to let the company know that we won't be putting up with any bulls**t. We need to constantly remind the company that we are smart investors who are watching their every step and who will hold them accountable for what they do.
It's very easy for somebody to pull the wool over your eyes by telling you that they're going to make you millionairs. I know, because it's happened to me on more than one occasion. Frankly, always hearing about how UC wants to take care of his shareholders, and listening to Melvin say that his shareholders are the number one concern, is frightening to me. I'd rather not hear that at all. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS THE JOB OF ANY CEO!! Of course we should be their number one concern. We own the damn company!!! We aren't UC's shareholders, UC is OUR CEO, and we HAVE to hold him accountable if he fu**s up! As much as it would be nice to be one big family, truth is, we're here to make money and he's here to make money. I'd prefer to have a CEO who knows he can't get away with feeding his shareholders BS lines like that. It makes me uncomfortable, because it says to me that UC doesn't feel like we have ANY say in what he does, nor does he feel any accountability for what he does...like he's a shepherd for a bunch of sheep.
I apologize for this post being a bit long, and most of you are probably not reading it. I'm just bringing up my legitimate concerns. I believe that the worst thing you can do is completely trust a company or a CEO or anyone when money is concerned. We need to listen to the negatives. We need to let the negative voice be heard, and we need to make sure that UC and Melvin and Glenn hear this negative voice, to keep them aware of their accountability at all times.
Zen, I love all of your posts and I respect what you've done, but I respectfully disagree with you and your approach to negativity. For example, a journalist bringing up negative issues is not violating any code of ethics. He's reporting what he sees and believes. It happens to be negative. What's wrong with that? A journalist certainly has the right to report the negatives.
What we need isn't bashing and isn't pumping, but discussion that includes both the negative and the positive without fear of being jumped on and run out of town.
Running the negatives out of town is ultimately bad for everyone, and it makes it that much easier for the company to feel like they can easily get away with screwing the shareholders.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying the company has done anything wrong right now. I'm just throwing my ideas out there and it's all IMHO.
