RE: We need a Management changeOkay, just to straighten out a few things:
1. re: institutional manipulation. When you see a BMO - BMO cross on the transaction list, it does not imply that BMO is using it's own money to buy and sell shares. Typically that means that BMO is the agent/broker buying and/or selling for the principal investor (which could be a retail investor or could be an institutional investor).
2. re: institutional support. Many pension funds, endowments, etc. would not touch NAG or most other 'penny' stocks, as their investment mandates do not allow them to invest in stocks trading for under certain dollar amounts (such as $1 or $3, for example).
3. If the company wants to raise money, they should do so via a private placement or some other form of offering. Allowing insiders to exercise options and sell shares into the market is not an effective way to 'raise capital' for a company. Bruce Lock's constant exercise-dump pattern is troubling. Shareholders should seriously consider what value he adds to the company and whether his activities indicate he's got the interests of the company front and center.
4. re: management. NAG's management moves SLOWLY. This is very annoying, and as a 3-year shareholder, I must say, I'm getting tired of this pump and dump BS. Focus on a couple of properties. Drill the heck out of them. Post the results. Good or bad, at least that would be progress. Also, the company has a horrible record for disclosure. What ever happened to Whiskey Gap? That property used to be touted as a prospective trophy property. If results were poor, that would be a material change, which would warrant disclosure. Failure to disclose results or a decision to abandon the project would be a violation of securities regulations.