money constraints, or just poor performance?, page-16

Hi Routine, BRR,

I'm one of those long term holders still falling in line behind the board and don't agree that there should be major changes, particularly not for the CEO. Whilst in retrospect they have made big mistakes in how they have attempted to manage their financing, at the time it was mooted it seemed OK. The AFHL fiasco was just that. I don't know who's to blame there, but I doubt it was the board of the company, I lean more towards Moosey's opinion that there was a serious attempt to destroy the company and gain control. That the board continued dealing with AFHL for so long was a big mistake but I expect that they assumed that AFHL acted in good faith and they were far too trusting but didn't have a lot of options.

I've been involved in IT development for many many years and I know how easy it is to underestimate what is required monetarily to achieve an independently viable commercial product (as opposed to one that works ok with a bit of handholding). Developing a weapons system is similar but even harder and more perilous because you are dealing with peoples lives. In any ground breaking technical development it's often 3 steps forward, 2 back, or sometimes just start again. It's the way these things are and MST development is no different.

They are now actually getting some serious recognition from Canada and the US that the weapons are worth testing and considering for eventual operational use. To change the team at this time when on the cusp of actually getting somewhere would I think be a serious error and would likely be detrimental to the goal of achieving some success, regardless of perceived past failures. That Dr Finnear has not entirely achieved his agenda is I think partly due to the gfc in making financing harder to get and partly just to the type of task being undertaken which is not predictable, no matter how good you are.

In regard to the share price, yes, you have lost hugely if you are a long time substantial holder (as I am). There's not much the board can do about that except get on with producing a product to sell as soon as they can. I would fully expect that they are very focused on this. They know it is going to cost more than currently available funds which I think is why the sp is rated so low - a bit of a self reinforcing downward spiral as we have seen. However, one serious success story in the next year and it will be a different scene. Of course it's a gamble, but a stock like this has always been such. A major factor in the downward spiral of the sp was MOD's determination to continually sell down his shares pretty well regardless of the consequences. That was a pretty hard thing for the board to deal with in terms of trying to preserve shareholder value and obtain further investment no matter what they did.

.... so there is no quick fix in just dumping the chairman and replacing the CEO if the sp doesn't improve in a shortish period. Let the guy get on with it. Technically, he seems to be doing OK imo. Changing would almost certainly put the company way back and likely would be out of the frying pan and into the fire.