Hi and thanks.
I'd have to see what he said that led shareholders to believe they would be happy. If the settlement amount was never speculated about I think shareholders would have been ecstatic to hear of a $2.7m settlement. That's EXTREMELY positive for an OTC company.
The problem is that it WAS speculated about, but he was not legally allowed to say anything about the amount - good or bad. That's why I would like to know what specific comments you are referring to that made shareholders believe they would be happy - did they have anything to do with the settlement amount?
If they did - even indirectly, the next question is -- was he wrong to say that? For sure a 76% drop in one day is painful, but was it justified? IMO it was not justified and the amounts he reported along with the fins reported justified the share price the stock had risen to.
The further improvements in Q3 justify a price 10x higher than the current price - or 2-3x higher than the lofty levels in March - April.
Shareholders certainly would be happy with that. So how can anyone really say the CEO was wrong to be optimistic about the share price when realistic valuations put the price much higher?
SENTIMENT caused the drop, but FUNDAMENTALS don't support it.
It's all a shame, but I think those who are upset should consider the price to be a bargain right now that they can take advantage of and make a bundle on in the future as the price catches up to what it really should be at right now.
One thing is for darn sure: Negative evaluations based on failed expectations, while understandable, are harmful to the supply-demand equation. They are keeping the stock down. Smart money IMO views this like a ground floor opportunity, and is buying the stock up while others lament.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
