RE:RE:RE:RE:In a way...I have no probelm with those that question disclosure (or lack thereof)
I do have a problem when the only place they articulate those (often legitimate) questions, appears to be on a public forum, versus going to better sources (e.g Mgt. or members of the BoD, etc.)
To attack the Company publicly is both ineffective, and serves only to hurt your fellow retail investors that are subject to the supply demand equation for shares. The more newbies are told to "key pout" the lower the demand for shares, and the lower the share price. Unfortunately this is not countered by demand created by effective IR or exposure to more liquid markets such as the US. Better liquidity solves alot of problems. Some might even say that a lack of liquidity and the presence of "bashers", however well intentioned, plays into the hands of the "inner circle" as it makes incentive shares (PSU's RSU's warrants, etc.) that much cheaper ...which has the effect, over time, of concentrating ownership into fewer and fewer hands (you might recall the "they own it all" refrain from a previously well-known poster)
Having said all that, I am actually in the camp that SH shennigans has very little impact on price. The "price" is whereever "they " would like it to be. The less flattering light that is shone, and the more things are "gaslit" the easier it is to set the SP at ridiculous undervalued levels, at least until the final denouement. This suggests to some (e.g Rev and myself and others) that a better strategy to use might be "if you can't beat'em, join- 'em" (see Rev and myself). But of course that requires taking a risk, and a certain amount of conviction as to what the probable final outcome might be...despite annoying delays, obstacles, and Mgt. styles.
MM