With regard to #3. That explanation of lqmt, is more in line with the Stockholm Syndrome a.k.a. Patricia Hearst. Management is 1000% responsible, accountable and at blame for where the share price is and for whatever revenues are at all times.
Not the shareholders and not anyone expressing an opinion of what those revenues might be outside of any insider.
The feeling of disappointment from over estimating revenues lie not with the shareholders guessing up or down, but on the consistent failures of the executives to deliver consistent quarterly growth in revenues going back almost 20 years, to going back just 4 years ago, when Li bought 46% ownership of lqmt and became the new ceo.
The disappointment is in li’s failures to grow shareholder value in all shares held by any shareholder since his involvement. Not in anyone’s failures to theorize where lqmt’s successes will come from.
The downside is that, you are not alone in your feelings about lqmt’s failures. The upside If one can find any is not in the shares that Li holds, nor the protection of IP & trademarks. The upside is in the hope that lqmt’s executives, can develop and deploy a sales strategy to put all of that new found manufacturing capacity to use to increase quarterly revenues.
That potential is very real.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
