I go along with Van’s description of a possible exit strategy up to a point.
‘PTK will choose their development partner. PTK will go through the licensing motions. A 3rd (seperate) party or parties will come in and make a take out offer’.
But on reflection I wonder if some other possible course is developing. The factors are the recent management changes, that were signalled in January, the arrival of the ambitious young Mr Gagnon and the appointment of a gingery new CEO, this might be a done deal (what does interim really mean?).
Where this company progresses is down to the quality and personality of the management team and in particular the quality of its leadership. Mr Pierhall was tired but determined to see things through. The addition a young turk like Mr Gagnon and the arrival of a sparky new leader with vision, might change the company’s ambitions from seeking a moneterisation event to becoming the next Intel.
The trouble with the Van proposal is that its a rather obvious ploy to pretend that, actually we are a very serious development company whilst hoping for a buyout, this is easily seen through and in my opinion is weak thinking and a recipe for being taken out wholescale too cheaply by big player. As much as I like the cut and run with the money idea for quick bucks in my pocket, it amounts to short termism which has its dangers.
I think our (investors) long term interests are best served by a highly successful commercial insertion of this amazing new technology into mainstream computing. I am beginning to feel that management might be moving towards this course and I like it.
This is my humble opinion with profound apologies to the shorts on this board.
