a couple of concerns, page-16

My 2 cents... You are right that just because Hogan is a former broker doesn't mean he is not good for the company in terms of deal making and marketing. Correspondingly, just because he was a broker does not mean he is necessarily good at the same two traits.

Why is UMC not covered by any brokers? Why are UMC announcements received so poorly by the market when similar announcements by similar companies are framed and perceived in a much better light? Why is it that an incoming CEO cannot clearly articulate his vision for the company aside from a light review of past trading performance and the attitude of "let's dig around and see what we find"?

The lack of marketing by the company to brokers and investors WILL affect the final dilutive impact of future capital raisings. The perception may (and I stress the word MAY) be that the Hogan entity gets preferential information and as such other brokers will be loathe to recommend them. I'm not even sure that UMC has tried at all to do a broker roadshow or communicate the story outside of Hogans... I also note the consistent significant rise in volume and price of UMC shares just prior to any significant announcement.

These issues of perception are not neccessarily tied to Hogan's background but also to the way he and the company has communicated themselves to the investor audience.

Granted, his acquisition of the iron deal is a big deal... but conversely there is a perception that so much more can be done with the assets that UMC hold in terms of marketing their potential...

This is not necessarily my view on things but is the gist of what I can gather from speaking/reading fellow investor's thoughts..

I'd also like to give kudos to Showman on his consistently informative and balanced point of views. A real reflection on the leadership of his company.