As some on this board are aware of my background, I'm fully aware of confidentiality agreements in the context of investment banking transactions and consultancy. After you've underwritten a couple of billion in investment banking transactions for a major US investment bank, please feel free to instruct me on how the cow ate the cabbage. There is no naivete on my part. Let's see if we can get past the personal attacks about qualifications.
The company has been very open about reporting on the progress of the science, which act may have more impact on its competitive position (understanding we haven't heard of actual patent grants, just applications), and has said very little about the commercial aspects of its work. Does this mean they are doing "nothing" on the commercial front? No, but it does strike one as a disconnect in the respective communication processes and gives cause to raise the questions.
Your reply focuses on two elements: a) confidentiality and b) trust/patience.
I think any of us familiar with finance,investment banking, consultantcy, etc. can take a look at management's educational and work background and make some assessments. Without being personal, our management doesn't exhibit the experiential capacity one would prefer to see. As you and others have written, a good manager hires better people than himself. In order to do so, one must be honest with oneself and undertake sincere introspection. Apart from the individual characteristics, the firm doesn't have the employee breadth to evaluate all that needs to be done. To think otherwise is truly naive.
From my perspective, management can be in denial about such issues and try to muddle through or they can hire advisors in an effort to maximize the business plan and share value. There is absolutely no breaking of confidentiality to say, 'we have hired ..... to assist us in developing our business plan'. Would you have more confidence in management and the prospects for the company if such an announcement was made and the party named was Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, etc.? Such names aren't unrealistic in the context of the referenced size of this market. Absent such an announcement, particularly in the context of the company naming prior partners, such as the machine design firm in Denver, I think it's logical to assume the company is taking the go it alone approach.
Some have questioned the ability to financially pay for a top caliber CEO and I imagine they will likewise question the validity of a consultancy/investment banking relationship on the grounds of expense. The old saying, penny wise and dollar foolish is applicable.
If the company is having meetings with individual analysts (even under the terms of a confidentiality agreement), the company is at perfect liberty to say they are having ongoing analyst meetings with three firms in New York, one in London and one in Tokyo and the firms will be released to offer their reports upon completion of beta testing. Such could also be referenced pertaining to foundations, trusts, equity funds, etc. We have no information to affirm that the critical aspect of sharing information with analysts or institutions who can broaden the market for MZEI securities is ongoing. Rather than hearing statements affirming the initial stages of development of the insitutional market that will ultimately be necessary for a sustained stock price, what we see is management, with all the other responsibilities, taking on the PR role and talking at length to individual investors. Management may feel "safe" in doing so as they won't be subject to a gauntlet of financial questions, but it would be better for the company and the shareholders for them to otherwise spend valuable time.
In sum, there is a considerable amount of communication the company could make that describes the ongoing efforts to design the business plan and communicate its elements to parties who could do some future good (increasing the breadth of the market) without laying bear information that could cause the company harm. I don't need to be personally informed of the specificity of the business plan, but we investors do have the right to expect that management will communicate an understanding of the breadth of the issues and has taken steps to address them.
While I and instiutional investors would seek evidence of such, you would prefer trust. Trust is earned based on one's credentials or prior experience. I think we have sufficiently discussed commercial credentials. Prior experience shows a management that has failed at this stage in the past, we didn't even get to business developement. Nonetheless, they took over the company and had the prior frauds thrown out and are so credited. Having lived through that period of MZEI, I and others can't look to the future and simply positionally trust an alternative outcome without information that offers the prospects for commercial success (the business, not the science). To do so would be naive. From what some have written, it sounds like management took some abuse in the past and it's understandable that such experiences may taint management's willingness to share information for fear of not being able to control outcomes. Managerially, one can be fearful, insecure and desire all aspects of control or one can be bold and discerning, empowering others to the attainment of a common goal. Such leadership requires communication at so many levels.
I think people generally have a predisposition to make decisions and choices either on the basis of emotion or pragmatism. I view much of our personal 'conflict' to eminate from the manner in which we process decisions. In order for speculative investment based on hope to exist, there needs to be elements of facts that give rise to that hope. That is what we have today with MZEI. My preference, and ultimately the institutions' demands will be for information that can lead to pragmatic conclusions. Time will tell if your trust was appropriately placed or if my desire for more pragmatic information was not well founded. This isn't a matter of one or the other of us winning, we will both win in my view, the question for me is the magnatude of the win - you principally thinking it will be driven by the scope of the market and my thinking it will be driven by management execution, having already accepted the former.
This response is way too long, but perhaps we can put a bullet in the antagonism and work on making real each of our desires.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
