RE: RE: RE: RE: Complete disdain & response Orgy, tannin .....It's simple, the Board of Director is at the top of the pyramid and remains responsible for making sure that management is fully accountable to shareholders. The fact that Michael Liik remain in charge of investor relations, which has been a significant areas of weakness in this company since day one, continues to give me grave concern about the effectiveness of this board.
I also believe that they should not only be taking away his investor relations hat but also that of CEO and Executive Chairman as he is the one common denominator that hasn't been replaced in the past 12 years. All other companies would have taken action on both these counts long ago in an effort to move the business forward.
I on one hand hear sparse details about opportunities going on within Cymat, as in the last few news releases, and at the same time members of the board and management are selling into the generated trading volume at all time low prices. How do you relate the specifics of these news releases to their actions? This is a company where neither management nor the board members have any significant ownership in the company, I'm sure many individual shareholders holder more common shares then the entire lot of them put together. With no skin in the game they have made sure they are flush with options just in case they do "pull a rabbit out of the hat".
Frustration continues... some comments about David Fowler's e-mail response:
Another example of a shareholder e-mailing "Investor Relations" and getting absolutely no response. You had to send repeated e-mails directly to management to get a response, how nice.
"The final group of original patents will expire in 2014".....Then this games opens up to anyone at that point, all a potential competitor needs to do is to pull together a competent team of management professionals ... see next point.
"We also have significant in-house knowledge that is difficult to patent".....This knowledge can up and walk away at any time, even to the competition if they feel they have a better chance there ... see previous point!
"However we are seeing some active work through GF now, and recently met them to discuss focus and next steps".... After six years we're going to refocus, well isn't that nice, what happened to the commitment to this product made in 2006?
"Right now GF will continue to be our lead for automotive application"..... Why aren't they opening the doors to open competition. If this product has such opportunity don't you think someone else would believe in it's advantages and step forward to use it as part of their solution, to get a competetive advantage? Why are we closing the door?