RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:legacy shareholder whiningTHere is only one justification,,,,,,They were not able to get a better deal at this time...
Why?
Only 2 possible reasons
scarlet1967 wrote: If I recall correctly Spceo suggested in the event they dilute at low SP levels we should all line up and shoot them! They know they have frustrated/humiliated legacy shareholders and so far their justification for that deal is bizarre add to that the radio silence post approval so I am all in to vote against the board and yes they need some less conservative member/members who would appreciate the loyalty of longtime shareholders and work not only to secure the employees income but also make sure the investors get rewarded.
I have sent multiple emails to IR barely any reasonable response by the sound of it I am not the only one who have been neglected.
qwerty22 wrote: Maybe sacrifice one of them as a warning shot :)
Any dead wood? Make space for a more useful board member, maybe US orientated.
SPCEO1 wrote: Shareholders like ourselves have the ability to vote against board members if we are unhappy with their work on our behalf. If enough shareholders feel they have failed us, change at the board level can be achieved. Even after being diluted, if everyone on this board votes to oust the board, it likely would occur. We do not have any ability to directly change management, however, that is the board's job.
I am not sure we should be voting the board out, but this financing at least put the issue on the table to be considered. Unless someone wants to move in a hostile fashion against the board by calling a special meeting, we have time to consider the situation. Perhaps new information will emerge which will put the board's approval of the financing in a different light sometime before we need to submit our votes.
quote=jeffm34]
I agree totally when it comes to advancing the science they have done a great job. The executive and board have only one mandate though, that is to maximize shareholder value. On that front there is no denying they have failed miserably. I am not confident going forward that is going to change any time soon given the actions of the company. They need to make changes on the board and executive level to regain any hope of investor confidence.
SPCEO1 wrote: I would not say that management has done a poor job of running the company. They actually have made a lot of really good decisions in the last couple of years that should have translated into better stock performance. Where they are weak is in selling their story to the market. They just had the best thing that ever happened to the company in its long history - the ability to be a phase III NASH player - and the stock is still lower than it was prior to the announcement. It is incredible that management actually pulled that off but what is the point if when they do amazing, gutsy managerial things like that if there is no ability to communicate that effectively to the market so shareholders can be rewarded for their good decisions.
So, I have few issues with how they have managed the company internally but their management of external affairs, primarily convincing the market they have an amazing , intriguing future in two major drug markets, they have left so much on the table during one of the biggest bull markets of all time.
They could not even arrange for a large short position on the stock which, had they done so, TH's stock price would be soaring right now (that is a joke, just in case people are not aware of what is going on in the states the last few days with heavily shorted stocks soaring).
jeffm34 wrote: The only thing people were wrong about was managements ability to run the company successfully. If the same group is trying to take this company forward then they will likely continue making the same mistakes.
[/quote]