ITTR, my view is that the longer the stock stays low, the more inviting a low bid would be to many shareholders. At some point, people give up and say, "current management can't get us and keep us over a buck, why shouldn't I jump at $1.50," for example. It is not clear to me at this point what percentage of the shares represented by Agoracom folk would go for that or not.
Getting our share price up to say, $1.50, realistically brings a $2.50 "low ball" offer into play, which, although far from satisfying for most, is a lot better than $1.50.
All depends how confident you are that our scientists can deliver what they themselves have said they have set out to do, and, can they do it before someone else comes up with an equal or better solution. Our management seems quite confident they will succeed, as do many of our sharpest techies. If we got the VCSEL the way we hope, and a nice contract with a recognizable party or two to go with it, imagine the confidence level!
Many of you know I'm an attorney. Lawyers are trained to look at things in a way to figure (imagine) all that could go wrong, so as to write provisions that deal with or avoid those bad events (of course, when something goes wrong, it's most often something that no one foresaw!). That's why lawyer-drafted contracts have multiple ridiculous clauses in them that have about a .1% of ever coming into play. Loan agreements are classics in this regard, but far from alone. Although I despise this method, it's standard and would likely be malpractice if that weird, but generally addressed, circumstance obtained and was not adequately addressed.
