There is no doubt that the internet has enabled outside shareholders far more access to information that at one time was not reasonably possible. This is both good and bad. Good in that we can do far more DD and be generally better informed as to what is going on with companies that we are interested in investing in. Bad in that it leaves us craving for more information. Or worse yet, making investment decisions based on partial or less than totally understood available information.
In my opinion, it is naive to think that outside shareholders will ever know as much as inside shareholders. Yes, we want to know everything of course. But until information is public, it is insider information and only insiders should and will know that information. Most if not all insiders are shareholders ... so there will always be this dichotomy.
Again, in my opinion, we should not want company management spending their time making sure every common shareholder is fully up to speed on everything that is going on within the company. (And face it, this is the only level of information dissemination we would be satisfied with.) The CEO reports to the Board of Directors, not the shareholders. No sane and competent person would ever accept a CEO position if he or she had to report to the shareholders. The CEO is accountable to the Board of Directors. It is up to the Board of Directors to look out for the best interests of ALL shareholders. Therein may lie the problem with LQMT. But I don't know that.
We do a lot of guessing and assuming on this board as in any online message board. But to call company management purely ignorant based on how we interpret what we think their actions are is unfair. If you have doubts about the job the Board of Directors is doing, by all means question them to the extent you can and vote your conscience. But accusing them and management of things you don't really know and attacking their character is not right and frankly, if you are not careful, could open yourself up to charges of slander. (not sure about this part as I am not an attorney). But nonetheless, I still feel it is an aggressive attack that could potentially influence others (intended or not) to vote there shares in a certain way with no real basis in fact. Interpretation of some facts ... yes. But interpretation of facts is still just speculation and opinion and should not be the basis of such strong attacks and potentially influential commentary by a respected poster.
Watts ... I hope you take this post in the positive purpose that it is intended.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
