I normally have great respect for your posts, however,
"This recommendation of Thomas to shareholders implies that shareholder rights are limited to buying and selling shares of the company."
---I never said that.
"Fortunately for shareholders, Thomas has no idea about how it works."
---I disagree with that assertion. (besides, do you think that your vote is going to really send a message, or change the outcome?)
"Management must be transparent in all they do on behalf of the shareholders and provide enough information to justify their support."
---What is it you expect from current management? Where do you see a lack of transparency? If you see a lack, what have you done about it, other than threaten to vote against management wishes?
"Secondly, if shareholders have given their verdict about how this management has performed, I think a pps of $1,19 says enough: very little confidence."
---I'll remind you that "this management" got the first transgenically-produced product approved!
---If shareholders had ANY SAY about share price, it would be at $100/share now. But, alas, shareholders do not determine pps.
"Finally, the shareholders here on this board (and let me talk for myself) have been supporting the company for many years and have weathered periods of great delay and uncertainty. On top of that they have lost large amounts of money on their initial investment. To advise them not to exercise their only shareholder right (voting power) and look for greener pastures, reflects a total lack of respect for "hard core" shareholders."
---I can't speak for those who originally bought in at an artificially high price
---I feel your pain and sincerely sympathize. However, you knew (or should have known) what you were getting into with a development-stage biotech with a novel technology.
BTW, do you really believe that $1.19 is justified? I didn't think so. It has little to do with confidence in management by the "Market," imo.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
