RE: Millright, Somewhat Obvious but Objective!doingthejob,
My postings in the past have been no less objective than my recent comments. I have no use for the disregard with which Randy Miller deals with the shareholders that have invested in ISM. I also feel that if a company leadership deals with shareholders with this disregard, and fails to adhere to the rules established for the protection of shareholders, every effort should be made to bring the deficiencies to public notice and to the notice of the authorities. Invariably, those who ignore regulations will also operate in other grey areas, which may not be an enforceable violation, but is to the detriment of the shareholders and should be disclosed as such. I do not hold ISM in mistrust, or look at it with venom, a company is inanimate, an entity that is incapable of engendering these words that you toss around. As for those who "guide" the company, in my opinion those Directors serving with Randy Miller have been proven to be his lap dogs, rubber stamping what he puts forth. And in my opinion, Miller is the epitome of what is most undesirable in corporate leaders and governance. In my opinion he is unqualified for the position that he occupies, is arrogant, and openly has been awarded compensation and other benefits that are far in excess of what he deserves.
Now as for your revelation as to deviation between disclosures on the interest rates, I consider that to be of little consequence in anyone's search for truth concerning this company. In my opinion, a few points difference in interest rate on this loan, is of minor consequence, in relation to other disclosures made by this company. With few exceptions, the MD&A's, AIF's, MIC's and press releases authorized by this company are examples of poorly written, confusing and irrelevant information released for one of two purposes - to meet statutory reporting requirements, or to promote future potential with inconsequential data that has little or no bearing on future possibilities. In your search for truth, look at how often quarterly information on an important topic is an exact copy of the previous quarter's meaningless information - often produced without enough respect for the readers to advance dates that have become "outdated". Check and see the number of promotional announcements or appointments that were worthy of fanfare when announced, but that end without having being achieved, or the appointee vanishes without mention.
If you were truly interested in the truth about ISM that has some relevance, you wouldn't be getting all excited about a few points on that loan that you did all the detective work on. You'd be asking why the loan exists - why is the company unwilling to provide a meaningful explanation as to why it is diverting company resources to an unrelated corporation. You have maybe taken a step forward in questioning a minute detail, now take a meaningful step forward and question a pertinent detail. Otherwise, you fall in the category of not being able to see the forest for the trees.