Hi opty,
fair enough, but I wrote RG failed TO CREATE it in the timeframe of 15 months, so it seems we have different time expectations:
- shareprice value: 80% loss from his start wouldn't be the main problem if there was a realistic time horizon where the loss would turn in a plus - but looking at the last presentations by PTSC (and others) none is expecting a turn in 2009/2010. So IF we are lucky the shareprice will get to the 40ies in 20011/2012, meaning it took four years to get back where we were in 02/2008, not to speak about the shareprice of $0,8 or more.
- shareholder trust: Regarding his credentials you are 100% correct - but after 15 months of his reign MY faith and trust has faded.
- awareness in the market: I wrote this for months that it could be possible RG & Ibis are looking for (hidden) investors, who are purchasing behind the curtains or waiting for certain developments. Nevertheless: Can we be sure it is like that or is it just another little hope we have?
- seriousness: I allege his purchasing and communications actions in the very beginning of his time with PTSC were supposed to create a positive feeling and were made to create the high of last march when the shareprice spiked to $0,6 and suddenly MILLIONS of shares were SOLD to those of us who felt PTSC was starting a new era! Another lack of seriousness I see in the dramatic change of the MMP focus to the Crossflo focus WITHOUT any explanation to the shareholders (this is an issue with a lot of things to say but this would be too long for this post)
- professionalism: Well, the complete communications behaviour is NOT professional. Just an example: If the company sees the deadline of June 1st for the new launch is in danger they simply change it to "at the beginning of June" - ready. We do this for our clients (big technology companies) if things don't work out for them as planned. This is a signal of professionalism AND seriousness: You show respect for those you communicate with.
Again I agree 100% with your sentence that most damage has been done before his time, but then again: IF RG is the most professional CEO this company ever had with industry accepted credentials shouldn't be one of the first steps have been to dissociate from the former activities (instead of noddling about the 30mio of dividends he would like to have in the February presentation?)
From my experience every strong CEO (and if it was just to protect himself) would make a clear statement to differentiate his work from the past.
GLTY
