RE:RE:Here's my best i-Dialco guess I agree with tou
more disclosure is not only warranted, it is of paramount importance, and the least they could do for loyal shareholders who have tied up their hard earned money.
I probably own ( very small to small pieces of) more than 100 different public companies ... I can't think of one where Mgt doesn't periodically share their strategic plans for the future with shareholders. Setbacks, if they happen are discussed. Changes in direction are discussed. Revised strategic goals are discussed. Every company encounters them. It's not something to hide from
How to share? Via media/ interviews, investor conference calls, wider analyst coverage, etc.
Spectral does none of that!
Where I am not convinced you are right, is the inference that Spectral did not meet their contractual obligations and therefor something was removed ( by force, as punishment, etc)
To me there is a better chance that the barriers to adoption for DIMI in particular are higher than many of us assume. While the DIMI overcomes many barriers ( eg expense, water systems, ease of use, portability, etc) there are more barriers that still need to come down ( eg insurance coverage, legal liability, nephrologist bias, etc)
I think Infomed understands this but still needs Spectral for many reasons ( NA contacts, manuevering thru the FDA bureaucracy , HP patents, etc)
I think HHD as an inevitable paradigm shift, still has a few more years to cook. Outset is not profitable. There may NOT be a ready buyer for DIMI just yet. So maybe it needs another $30, $40 or $50 M thrown at it - at least until the technology, customers, market, infrastructure, Mfg facilities, etc. are ready. Without all ingredients in place, its not a viable business model. Spectral is not in a position where they have sufficiently deep pockets to get it there. It may be that Infomed offered to carry the costs to get it there, in return for a larger share.
Why would you continue to be in business with a partner that drops the ball on their obligations... unless...you feel there was extenuating circumstances ( perhaps at least in part, events beyond their control) . If you don't need the non-performing partner, you'd simply turf them for breach. .If you still need them, you rework the terms of the deal .
admittedly speculation, but at least as plausible as Spectral being strong-armed into giving away the store .
Of course, all of this speculation could be easily rectified/ put to rest by a more open discussion of the go forward strategic plan - perhaps recently altered or setback, by current events ( some controllable, some not).
MM