I totally agree. IMO it's time we minority shareholders asked some hard questions of management, which year after year pay themselves handsomely (rates more in line with a fully commercial enterprise) to run what is still basically still an R&D company (now with an engineering manufacturing operation with no IP of its own tacked on).
For many years this R&D had been spruiked as being novel, game-changing etc etc, but never has any hard evidence been provided that this "disruptive" technology even works from a commercial perspective (anything can look exciting in the laboratory at UWA), let alone evidence that anyone in the marketplace wants it. I mean real evidence, not the usual waffle.
I would have thought full disclosure rules would require results/outcomes of the numerous R&D programs and trials we have been told were under way would be made public, whether good or bad. After all that is all an R&D company does...... so if PSY is going to list and take millions of $s from shareholders surely it has a legal obligation to disclose fully the status of this never-ending R&D activity, and to regularly report on precise outcomes and commercial interest/potential. I bet the major shareholder knows a lot more that we do! how fair is that?
Maybe ASIC should do its job? Personally I have a significant investment in PSY which I have (stupidly?) held onto for many years despite no genuine technical or commercial information from the company. I would much rather know the real picture, even if negative... in which case I would have reason to move on to the many other opportunities out there.
PSY Price at posting:
10.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
