RE:RE:Shame? I referred to 4 directors, not all. Shame on who ?Cabbie: Didn't I make it to your Ignore list because I had crticisms of the BoD and MGMT? Sort of like Fox viewers unsubscribing to CNN. The closed minded do prefer to only mingle with their own.Can' t logically refute it, so just turn it off.
I have pasted your post and inserted a few comments. They are in caps to distinguish. Unlike the earlier post from Astutein, which was in caps, to denote yelling. Astute in what I must ask? I have tried to limit personal criticism, but while he is very modest (why not use "Mr.VeryIntelligent" ?), he seems unable to construct sentences.
I asked a day or so ago - based on what the BoD and MGMT have delivered over the years - who would give QTRH fresh cash. I bought shares in ope market because it seemed to be trading at a discount to intrinsic value, not because the BoD and MGMT have shot the lights out. Not even close.
I, like other shareholders have a right to call out poor performance and poor practices and to demand change. Shareholders are the owners, and they are not beholden to a BoD or MGMT. In too many cases it is just that mentality. Sleepy, or overly pro BoD and MGMT shareholders at any expense (like you) allow that to evolve.
" Shareholders1, for someone who professes to know so much and do unbelievable huge amounts of investigtion and due dilligence, you have revealed yourself to be short on factually correct, non-misleading information. - You fail to mention that the new director is in blackout; HOW DO YOU KNOW? THE BO DOES NOT ALWAYS START ON DAY 1 OF THE QUARTER? DO QTRH EMPLOYEES KNOW? AND IF THERE WAS A BO ON THE DAY ELECTED, SHE COULD HAVE BOUGHT THE DAY OR WEEK BEFORE THE AGM.
- Skippen's 451,500 directly held shares cost $2,201,355, an average cost of $4.786. I have no insider information to know that as it's in the AGM material. It looks like you didn't read the AGM material or that you forgot to leave out this important piece of information in your rant on Skippen enjoying the fruits of cheap options; HOW IS IT A RANT? I SIMPLY ASK WHAT % OF HIS SHARES WERE BOUGHT WITH CHEAP OPTIONS INSTEAD OF ONLY HIS CAPITAL. AND BTW, WHY DOES A CORP THIS SMALL (AND L-T UNSUCCESSFUL) NEED A VICE CHAIR? ANSWER: MORE FEES.
- Maybe you didn't read the AGM material. You deride the CFO as holding a paltry 1,056 shares. I ADDED THE OBSERVATION ON THE CFO, BECAUSE AFTER CLEARLY MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT 4 DIRECTORS, OTHER READERS SELECTIVELY BROUGHT UP OTHER OFFICERS' HOLDINGS. MY COMMENTS WERE AIMED AT 4 DIRECTORS ONLY. YOU ARE RIGHT HERE HOWEVER. IT IS PALTRY. YET A TRUE STATEMENT OF CONFIDENCE! Is it possible that his holding are greater than yours? Could it be that you were unable to vote or ask your questions at the AGM because you do not meet the fundamental, core requirement to attend the meeting - to be a shareholder. Therefore, my belief is that the CFO probably holds more shares than you do. Despite your "stage name", are you in fact a QTRH shareholder?; THESE LAST 3 SENTENCES ARE NOT WORTHY OF A RESPONSE.
- Shorkey, who has been on the BoD for 14 years, is the only Director (other than the newbie) that has not attained the required ownership level. WRONG. GO BACK AND REVIEW CIRCULARS FOR LAST 4 YEARS AND SEVERAL DIRECTORS REPEATEDLY FAILED TO MEET THE MINIMUM OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT. ROXANNE IS ONE REPEAT OFFENDER, AS IS SHORKEY. AND BTW, THE BoD COULD REALLY USE SOME MUCH, MUCH OLDER PEOPLE. AND CERTAINLY SHOULD AVOID YOUNGER PEOPLE WITH HIGH LEVELS OF ENERGY AND LEADING EDGE KNOWLDEGE AND OR OTHER BOARD MEMBERSHIPS. CROSS POLLINATION OF IDEAS AND BEST PRACTICES SHOULD BE AVOIDED. This is a disgrace and is the reason that I voted against Shorkey's nomination for the past 3 years. Others should consider this fact at the next opportunity to vote on QTRH directors; WHAT !? A CRITICAL COMMENT FROM YOU? WHY NOT SHARE THIS OPINION BEFORE THE AGM?
- You were going to report your perceived "non disclosure" skullduggery to the regulatory authorities. I WAS? RE READ WHAT I WROTE. NEITHER Q3 OR Q4 WERE "MATERIAL CHANGE" TO THE BUSINESS AND NEITHER HAD TO BE DISCLOSED. SO THE BEEF IS WHY CHERRY PICK? Since you are still harping on it, it appears that your complaint was found to not have merit; and - I BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE GARBAGE POSTS ABOUT "MISLEADING". COMICAL - COMPLIAINTS ABOUT A FAIR AND VALID OBSERVATION ON BoD SHARE OWNERSHIP RUFFLED FEATHERS, YET NO READER SAW INCONSISTENCY IN THE BoD PREANNOUNCING Q1 AND NOT DOING SO FOR Q4. IMAGINE IF A LARGE FUND WAS BUYING AT THE 2.90 TO 3 + LEVEL AND THEN SAW Q4 RESULTS. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THEY LOST FAITH IN THE BOD AND MGMT? RECALL, FGP USED TO BE A 10% PLUS HOLDER, WHY NO MORE? NO FAITH.
ALSO, WHY NO COMPLAINTS FROM YOU & OTHERS ABOUT THE LACK OF DISCLOSURE ON THE CURRENT EBITDA OF NEW SUBSIDIARY?
Even though you may not be on the BoD, with fudiciary duties, this does not absolve you of of a requirement to not mislead. HMM - I SEEM TO RECALL MANY FEEL GOOD POSTS FROM WILANDER WHO EVENTUALLY ANNOUNCED HE SOLD 100%. WHY NO CRITICISM OF HIS POSTS THE PRIOR 2 MONTHS? I don't know what sparked your assertion, but not being on the BoD is not a license to mislead. SEE COMMENT RE WILANDER. Come on man! YOU NEED TO THINK 360
Hope you have a sunny day. " THE PHRASE IS HAVE A NICE DAY.