You are right, I am just frustrated. The fact Dan is trying to take more shares for himself when he has not generated any shareholder value on the capital he has raised since he took the helm is not right and signals that he doesn't care as much about getting the stock price up as lining his own pockets while shareholders get the short end if the stick. When we get back to the $20s I am out for good unless our large holders step in a make change. We should valued higher than we are. While some think it's because of the shorts I think a large factor is the CEO is not aligned with investors. The proof is that Dan's investors in aggregate bought in around $12 - they are down on their investment while Dan's financial position had increased along the way because of the shares he had taken from shareholders. That is not pay for performance - it is more like the shareholders feel the pressure on the stock from all the diluton while management shields themselves and come out whole because they print themselves more shares to offset the dilution. How does that incentivize them to get the share price up when they know they can continue to dilute to add cash to the balance sheet and give themselves more shares so their investment value doesn't go down as the stock is pressured down from the dilution that shareholders feel.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
