Voices heard on the "share consolidation": It is with deep regret that I find myself being forced to agree with the consolidation. There are a few reasons, but the paramount and most insurmountable to my eyes is my perception that management owns and or controls enough shares to make this a fait acompli.
Is it best for DNAP? Obvioudly yes, to fund the recent patent purchase and the research that must be performed.
1) Is there an alternative sufficient source of funding? Do we have a division or patent to sell???
NO!
2) Are we expecting future growth and payment for the products and services DNAP has, is and will produce? To get there, we have to pay more for the chance to grab the brass ring. WE have been on the merry-go round for years, and we just keep missing. Okay we got a bunch of silver rings, but that has just put us in position to play in the big leagues. An accomplishment in itself.
YES!
3) Is the company becoming more well known and better respected?
Well the mere fact that funding is being considered and the recent alliances, seems to answer this question with a resounding
YES!!!
4) Can DNAP go on without additional funding? Or will lack of capital cause the company to stagnate? No victory wine when the grape withers on the vine.
NO!
5) After standing on the dock for this long, am I going to dump my ticket for a loss, or am I willing to keep the loss on paper and take a longer to have the chance to suceed with this investment. It will definitely take longer to profit because of dillution. The goals are set high and now someone just lowered the field. Do you or I want to give up on DNAP and walk away? Or do we stay on in the belief that Doctor Frudakis has some small bit of genius that will reward us.
I don't give up!
6) Is the management team shafting the shareholders?
This is the most difficult to answer. I am still suspicious of DNAP's role in the Biofrontera activity. But in reading up on Biofrontera's "nervous bride" history, perhaps when I referred to using DNAP as a ringer to bolster a competing offer for Biofrontera, I might have spoken to harshly. But I'm still not satisfied with the answers I have and I'm in no position to get a more satisfactory answer.
Have to Wait and see
Are the stock options and payments due the management team payable in 1/15th value shares that we all have after the consolidation? Or are the payments to the management team to increase in value by a factor of 15 because they will be issued in sufficient quantity to nullify the effect of the consolidation for management and favored share participants?
The crux of this consolidation and "should we stay the course" boil down to can the management team be counted on to husband the "super shares" so as to treat the shareholders fairly? (In light of the changing conditions we all are aware of.) I believe Doctor Frudakis cares for his shareholders.
Lopez Gomez and Tamborini are movers and shakers and will drive the company on, but will they do it at the expense of the long term investor? I'm afraid the answer is Yes. I don't think that they give one whit about the personal side of some of the money they handle. They are goal oriented and will do what is best to achieve the goal. Perhaps they will look at it as rewarding the investors "eventualy", and ease any twinge of conscience that might result from considering that some people are invested here because we know someone, or we are those who could benefit from the science. Or worse that we invested with a social conscience because it was good for mankind.
And some of us who invested in memory of lost friends who succumbed to an illness because the treatment was de riguer but our friends didn't take to it. These are just our personal feelings that this management team has put aside to suceed. The feelings of early investors play no role on the path they see to sucess. Having feelings plays no role in business. Our loyalty to Doctor Frudakis will now only be rewarded by just how "miserly" they are with the "new" shares that are created by this consolidation. Will they remember that someone paid fifteen cents a share in 2003, and now has a share worth a little over a penny? That that share is to be reduced in value by the "consolidation" to 1/15 of it's current value? That the portion of the company that that share represents is being reduced simultaenously by keeping the other "new shares" undiminished? If you take the current share count and reduce the (guess?) 2/3 outstanding to 1/15 and then I think you must consider the 1/3 as representing a greater portion of the company per share sold. Maybe it comes out in the wash, but I feel it's a double whammy on us and until I'm shown differently, that's my understanding. I guess we won't know until we see who gets those shares. If it's a goal oriented environment I can consider it okay if mangement get's a bonus for achievement. But if it's a quick way to grab cash and bankrupt the company and create a way to send the assets over to a new stable that we have no interest in, well I guess I've had that happen on the penny markets before. I just don't think that is the way it is. I think we may all have to tighten our belts together. I hope management will have some respect and consideration for longer term shareholders, but I can't expect it from them. I hope for it, and I think it's possible, but I can't say I've seen it exhibited by our management in the past.
As gloomy as I am about this consolidation and the personal cost to my bank account, I still have that faith I always had in Doctor Frudakis. If he has faith in the managers, I will reluctantly join in his belief. It's not all the money that drives me here, and we all know those personal reasons can be quite compelling. I can see no other course of action for the company to consider for it's survival. While there is life there is hope.
As my family doctor said to me the other day, "Medicine isn't cheap." Voting against the consolidation is a fruitless endeavor. It has to be to survive. Abstaining from the vote on that item might send a message, but then who would care. The only other voting alternative is to sell out and take the loss. That is as strong a statement as you can make, but it could possibly destroy the company. The term phyrric victory comes to mind.
I've decided not to attend the shareholders meeting. I fear that even the good comraderie would fail to revive my flagging spirit. I wish you all a productive and informative meeting. Please bring back some gloombuster news. Please?
Stakddek
