RE:RE:RE:AGM to be virtualMISTERFB, your points are well-taken, but I must respectfully disagree with you.
Most AGMs are a formality, being "procedural", so an AGM held virtually makes a lot of sense. Now if Poet had a special situation to present at the time of the AGM, like way back when they bought Denselight and BB Phontonics, then a in-person one concurrently held with a virtual one makes sense. A company would probably get
more shareholders to attend that way, which makes it more democratic.
There is a constant mantra here by the negative ones that believe in a face-to-face encounter with management that those posters here would get their answers. There In my opinion, I disagree with you on two fronts. First of all, these posters usually post in a disgusting manner about management, conspiracy thoughts, posting often how incompetent they think management is. Would these posters show their face at an in-person AGM and present their questions? With the way they behave here, it would seem highly unlikely. Cause they continue to show their disrespect regardless what management does. It's like bashing is baked into those posters cake where they seemingly enjoy acting very immature and exceptionally judgemental here.
Secondly, at an in-person AGM, management would still only have a certain amount of time in their agendas to address questions. Usually their presentations on their summary of the past year answer most questions. Management will stop short of answering any questions that try to probe into confidential information that is not ready for public release in the interest of the company and its shareholders. They will guard the strategic directions of the company at all times while it is a work-in-progress. So, other than what is presented publically over the past year to the present, I doubt that any information that posters keep babbling about here would ever be answered --- mostly, because the negative financial chat posters seem to be more like daytraders and armchair quarterbacks that would be looking for answers that couldn't be made up to satisfy their negatively-biased questions anyway, in my opinion.
gilver