RE:Very informative article from director of TributeWhat a bozo. Why did he even bother writing such a vapid, recycled article. You'd think a director would have at least been able to contribute something beyond recycled info already out there. I responded to his article with:
As a (significant) former shareholder of Tribute, I'm am still disgusted at how Mr. Harris @ Co traded a steadily growing company providing increasing shareholder value for a MASSIVE amount of risk in a single drug (Yosprala) that still has not been approved. Before the merger, Tribute shares were trading around $1.35 and now their equivalent value is trading somewhere around 72 cents. How do you feel that Mr. Harris and his directors performed this merger in the best interest of investors again? Investors, at the end of the day, are interested in making money, and whether that money is made by having a large slice of a small pie or a small piece of a big pie, is irrelevant. Tribute revenues were steadily climbing, and continue climbing to this day, with costs under control. There is no doubt in my mind, despite the sector turmoil, that Tribute would be north of $1.50 today were it left to its own devices. Again, if if ARLZ doubles up from these values (a big IF), we'd only then return to where TRX would have been sitting for the last year.
If you think this deal was so wonderful, point to me one TRX shareholder on the planet - that wasn't awarded shares for nothing - that is in the black, and hasn't been in the red for the last year biting his/her nails *hoping* yosprala gets approved and if it does, the management team who took over tribute can also execute on growing its sales.
Again, all of that shareholder value was traded for a massive amount of risk that is one letter from the FDA away from being, at best, returned after maybe ANOTHER year of waiting, or at worst, completely annihilated in the event of another delay. And you're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me this deal was in the best interest of shareholders?