So that everyone understands the context of the reply:
Here's some of the other things Matt detractors say:
1. Matt has a nasty habit of making promises and failing to deliver. You can say whatever you want about why he can't deliver, but the fact still remains that he now suffers from The Boy Who Cried Wolf (Cash Flow Positive?) syndrome. No one believes a single thing he says now, because his rosy predictions have been wrong so often.
2. Matt concealed the chill for months from investors. He knew in December 2010, yet said nothing. December 2010 is also when the board decision to R/S took place. He knew both of these facts, knew that the investors did not, yet urged people to buy stock in early 2011, prior to making anyone aware of the R/S or chill. Doing so, while knowing these facts, demonstrated that he was untrustworthy. It demonstrated that he was willing to withhold important information from investors in an effort to sell more shares.
3. Matt offered several reasons to support the R/S, and none of them were accurate. No uplisting, no large investors, no using them for strategic acquisitions, no more favorable financing, no mystery LOI's closed. Although none of those so-called benefits ever materialized, he's burned through a huge chunk of the new shares already.
4. Matt has given the appearance of caring more about his own financial interests than the investors. He has refused to change his compensation structure in light of the state of the company, awarded himself a huge severance package, started a separate company while supposedly "working tirelessly" on behalf of CBAI, and even given interviews about the exotic vacations he's taken while the investors watched their accounts diluted and R/S'd into oblivion. While none of these things are necessarily prohibited, they certainly damage his image in terms of where his true "laser focus" is - because it seems his "laser focus" is his own bank account, rather than our investment accounts.
5. Matt refuses to reach out to his admitted friends, and request that they stop making misleading predictions, and otherwise engaging in actions that create the impression that they are attempting to mislead or confuse investors. He has to know that when people brag about their close ties to him, and he appears on their webpage to communicate with investors, that he is viewed as endorsing their actions. If they subsequently behave in a way that is a negative to the company image, he has a duty to ask them to stop. It would be as simple as popping over to the web page, and asking them to tone it down, or simply emailing or calling them to ask them to stop. He hasn't, so many feel it is a coordinated plan of action which is condoned by him.
------------------------
All of the above have shaken a variety of investors' confidence in Matt. Yet he does nothing, except pretend that everything is rosy or completely out of his control. Some may feel that the CEO's job is just to smile and say whatever is necessary to sell a few shares, but I do not. I feel that a truly effective CEO is one who inspires confidence and trust. Someone who builds faith through action and reliability. Someone who outwardly behaves in a way that is beyond reproach, and ALWAYS evaluates how any proposed action will effect the company image. Someone who avoids doing ANYTHING that might even be perceived as a negative in the eyes of the investor.
It is the right of any investor to support or criticize, and such personal freedoms are some that I personally highly value. Just as it offends me to see the ruthless steps taken by communist governments to squelch dissenting opinions, it offends me to see the efforts used to discredit critical opinions. Such tactics are so far beyond acceptable behavior that it has caused me to become determined to combat it at every turn. The truly sad thing is that it has soured me on the investment and management even further (see #5), and probably makes me seem more negative than I actually may really be - because the ridiculous claims must be refuted by continually posting objectively negative facts. It creates a vicious circle, that feeds on itself, but the end result is more negative public sentiment about the company. Yet Matt does nothing.
So, one can support Matt if one wishes. I have no problem with that - it is an absolute right as an investor. But the right to do so is not superior to the right to criticize and be dissatisfied. They are equal to each other, and I am happy to engage in constructive discussions about differing opinions. Heck - maybe I will change my mind as a result. But I do not condone improper bullying tactics, and I cannot sit idly by and watch them occur.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
