Al,
The problem is this; even though many of us agree with you in that we deserve news. We can not do anything about it. Thus we go hunting. Maybe it is that anything Brian could share with us now would scare us away and he knows what possible potential there is? (an example/guess, not a statement)
I do understand your stress. I am stressed also. but, I am not in charge. Brian will run the show the way he feels is right. I respect him even if I disagree with him.
I also very highly respect Net and TR in spite of my being more cautious than they when it comes to projections.
My experience in business has shown me that good new and bad news are not evenly spaced. You can go through a dry spell just to be thrown quickly into more work than you can handle. I am not sure what is around the corner for FASC. However we do have lots of hints.
Thus, FASC is a "Gamble." That is why I have a hard time understanding Sun, when we should all know the risks of where
we are playing the Game. when you go to Vegas and you walk out with less than what you came in with, you expect it. Some one walks out with a boat load. The one who has the boat load is the minority.
It is the same here with all stocks. Especially in penny land.
Much of it is because most CEO's and Shareholder boards do not really care about you. They are interested in their own gain regardless of the responsibility that is supposed to be written in stone. It usually is written in Jello.
Brian is different. He realizes his responsibility. He does not go with the dishonesty that is prevalent in this business. That is why he is not willing to give up.
By the way, I have owned Ford, GM, Sears and Calpine energy in their hey days. I also owned them when they took a dive.
Believe it or not... GM and Chrysler are not saved. Anyone who knows a little about book keeping is aware of this. The term is "kicked the can down the road" Nothing is structurally fixed. These companies survive due to political correctness. If they had
been allowed to go through a legal Bankruptcy they would have had
multiple of "debtor in possession financing", the first terr Bondholders would not have been wiped out (the retirement accounts of many) and an appropriate restructuring would have taken place. (Shareholders and other Bond holders would have lost out)But the companies would be on solid ground compared to now.
Thus risk where ever you turn,
RJ
