Wino115 wrote: I think your english is perfectly fine and actually a lot better than many english speakers! I think the point is not to have some cookie-cutter email that they see is just a chain letter and throw it out. Each person pressing their own points will make a better impression. It's not so much answering questions either, as I think your response from Dubuc is correct and likely what they would say to anyone posing probing questions.
It sounds like the frustration often voiced here is the recurring theme of lacklustre communication or important facts, a level of response and presentation of their strategy and ideas that is well below their peers highly professional efforts, a lacking skill amongst the executives of not being able to take their highly specific knowledge and put it into a cohesive arguement as to why you should even bother following what they are doing -- I mean, their spending their careers and hours running aspects of this company, why don't they care to excite others in a well thought-out and convincing way. Whether they put time and thought into their ability to communicate precisely their science, the excitement around the developments and the knowledge neccasry for everyone to understand exactly where all things stand doesn't matter as what we all and the market sees is a really weak effort and this leads us and the market to view them as a management team that does not rank it's shareholders and the ability to add value very highly because they keep failing at it.
You can approach it however you want, but it's hard for them to run from the fact that they have underperformed in 1) the capital market place, 2) revenues and commercialization 3) creating any kind of investment following 4) creating any kind of industry acknowledgement of their efforts 5) having their strategy understood. I think CEO and CMO are two positions where they should very easily be able to take the science and the business strategy and put it together such that you leave a discussion wanting to own a piece of that. Neither can do it. If your CMO can't discuss the complexities in an investor friendly way, then get someone else in your team to do it. Pauls problem is he only has himself, CMO and CFO to do that. It's too small a team, but he needs that skill somewhere in his team if he can't do it either. I seriously hope the IR lady brings this to their attention and that she has the skill to teach them what is needed and what is important. I hope they listen if she has that skill, I don't know if she does either. The slight improvement we've seen in the presentation is ok, but it's still miles behind the leaders in biotech. Anyway, spin what you want on it, but I think it should not be a string of questions with no answers given, but a constructive criticism comparing what they're doing to what a professional biotech does for it's investors and the market.
scarlet1967 wrote: "I think any amount of ownership gives you a vote and perhaps the best way is that the message is amplified when they get 20-30 emails from shareholders all making similar points"
I think this is a great idea, English is my third spoken language so why not you or other members draft an email and post it here if they are suggestions we can add/edit and all members here email the final copy to CEO, CFO, IR..