nynewbie,
<<Unfortunately I'm just not very sophisticated. When it comes to common stock the only way I've found to make money is for the stock to go up, not down.>>
From what you have written, I doubt that you are not very sophisticated. And some people short stocks and they make money with the share price going down but I am sure that you know this.
But what my statement was referring to was really related to what level of confidence that I had that the company would succeed in its mission. If I think that the company will succeed, then I will hold through a low share price and give it time to succeed and see if I am right. I have scored big time with this but also lost a fair amount of money with this approach, but overall, I am up with this approach so I stay with it.
Other people/investors/traders have much different time horizons and philosophies than I do. If it works for them, thats great. That is what I meant with my statement about there being lots of different ways to make money in investing.
<<I don't think anyone here knows why they changed CEO's. The only thing we can be sure of is that the new one is doing a crap job based on the money we've all lost on vsys in the last year (at least us unsophisticated types). >>
If share price is your only factor in determining whether the CEO has done a good job or not, then you are correct with your statement. My take on it is different. From investing in many companies and many turn around stories, I see it takes time to turn things around for most new management. Some people are able to step in and change things right away, but for most, it takes time. And some don't succeed. Raefield laid out his plan, it seemed reasonable to me, including the reasons why the timetable got pushed back, so I am giving him the time I feel is appropriate to turn things around. I am aware that he may not succeed and I could lose a big chunk of my investment here. But I think the story of VSYS is still a good one so that is also why I am sticking around.
As to why CEOs changed, you are right. I don't know. But I can guess/speculate. If the old management was succeeding, I don't think you would have seen a change. Most boards won't cut off their nose to spite their faces. That is why I am guessing that new orders were not coming in the way the board was expecting and that is the reason for changing leaders at the top.
<<PS. Without an awareness campaign Viscount's annual results will simply not matter unless they had a groundbreaking Q4. They could be up 40% in revenue and be profitable and we'll all be sitting here patiently congratulating the CEO of our 5 cent stock.>>
Again, I think you are right about this. Maybe they are waiting for the results to be good before they go out and try to sell investors on investing in Viscount. But they really need some good results to crow about. Because if they only try to raise awareness of the company without results, my guess is that we will be right back with the low share price again before long. I try to invest for the long term so I am used to waiting for things to happen. And again, sometimes I am right and sometimes not. I think part of the reason for this philosophy is that I don't have the time or patience to look at all the ups and downs of the market on a minute by minute basis.
One last point about posts on bulletin boards. Sometimes, posts and words can be inexact. Sometimes when I write, I know I have a point in mind and it just comes across in a totally different manner than what I was expecting. If I have offended anyone, I apologize because that is not what my intent was.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
