RE:RE:You need to watch this -- sound familiar?This is why I, too, am questioning the need for the latest financing?
Was there a engineering part that required redesign, replacement, or other? If so, was AMI trying to obtain money now before presenting this issue to the public via news?
I place these theories out there again in comparison to the Orbite company, where it had to do some serious toxic financing to obtain $30M in order to replaced a flawed calcinator (Heating Equipment). Without the correct device in-place and functional, the company couldn't obtain the 5N (99.999%) purity alumina they were pitching. This is where shareholders again were hit with dilution, and thus felt additional burn in their accounts -- however there, management were also padding their pay cheques, too - not in the same case as AMI, that I am aware of, anyway. So it is not a direct comparison.
I have only been in AMI for +/- 2yrs, so not since the Altillery Peek days. Irregardless, I doubt I will run out to average down now, and simply hold my base instead. I can always buy more later at my current A.C.B when the company demonstrates it has it's technology functional and is in demand by the L/I market.
On a side note, has anyone questioned Larry on if the Saudi's are after buying up control over AMI tech? Seems to me they are going to have less and less indusry purchasing their country's oil over time, so, I feel it might be fair to assume its leaders would want to replace that revenue stream somehow?
All IMO..
Sky