Dialectic initiated:
My view that foggy practises surrounding First Cape the links with Richard Martin and the question of whether FC allowed their shares to be used for shorting, should be examined in the light of day, stand. This is because I have a particular interest in governance. Agree. Many of us care about governance (assuming it may exist). Questions around desired outcomes:
- Are we seeking to determine legalities, or if the potential of FC allowance of shares to be shorted is simply unethical (likely, but who decides)?
- Are we expecting to discover the reality of whether or not this actually happened, and if so how?
- If we were to find out, what outcome do we hope for?
- How long do we spend on this discussion? (ie. what's practical, statute of limitations, etc.)
There are different perceptions as to the cause of the dilution and the desperate straits ADO has been in for a considerable time. You should allow this.
So noted. My perception of why the cap raising / dilution of shares as follows:
- costs of running the business have been greater than the revenue raised
- No major deals have been closed
- poor management of R&D costs. Staffing up before a deal is done
- Underestimation of complexity in path to market for medical devices (immaturity in industry)
- Naivety of management with regards to entering R&D agreements with no ties to revenue
- Focus in wrong application(s) of technology
- Canadians
- DIASource (enough said)
There are probably others, but this is a quick snapshot of the list of things bungling around in my head about why we find ourselves in the diluted, albeit cashed up position we're in.
Happy to hear others opinions on how/why we've needed to dilute, raise capital. Question on the above:
What is the desired outcome from discussing the different perceptions of why we have needed to raise capital? Clarity? Appointing blame? BTW, all of the above dot points have been discussed ad nausea in this forum over the years, but happy to revisit for the purpose of the dialectic.
(20min delay)