RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:This constantly self off your comments are a lame excuse for vqs' current valuation and do not reflect my thinking
the singular shareholder objective should be "maximum valuation" of vqs. you may be satisfied w/a glass "half full" but a glass "completely full" is so much more sensational/exciting, ie, $500,000,000+ Capitalization
if the technology were so disruptive, why isn't revenue doubling? if the technology is so disruptive, why has share count consistently and dilutively upticked over the past 5+ years? if the technology is so disruptive, why isn't vqs able to self finance accretive acquisitions? if the technology is so disruptive and the market opportunity so large, ie, over $10 Billion USD according to management, why isn't vqs even close to a $100,000,000 Revenue company?
existing mgt/board are lazy/greedy, drag their feet, do not aggressively seek sales, overcompensate themselves and are too Canadian centric just to name several criticisms.
Seriously, if the vqs technology is so disruptive why is the chairman of the board a canadian accountant?
shareholders have options available, including, but not limited to, the proxy received every year that allows a shareholder to vote on a menu of items, including board members
u may be right about "disruptive technology" but the numbers at the moment contradict the claim.