JD I'll post a more detailed response later but in short:For a...

JD I'll post a more detailed response later but in short:

For a long term holder you appear ill-informed. As with any of my investments I dont just get my "facts" from management.

I've been a LT Holder too - LONG term. Still holding the sizable stake I've always held. (As disclosed).
I have traded this stock (aside from my core holding) but only because the Co. has afforded me the opportunity with its appaling SP, ie with its failures. see ARW etc.

If management has been so exemplary, why has it, allegedly, taken a 3rd party to "encourage" them to:

inform the market (where's the COMPLETE reserves statement promised LAST Sept?)
seriously entertain review outcomes/offers (RBC?)
reduce debt
exert some authority over their contractors (see point 1)
desist with and write off once and for all the disapointing ARW investment
broaden the board/management
etc etc

Or is it just coincidence that recent changes have occured at the exactly the same time the Co. has been allegedly exposed to external agitation?

Secondly... yr view of Wylie is just that. I'm happy to see what transpires here. I'm confident Wylie are more than capable of getting the SP up. Whatever their reasons for doing so.

As far as "talking it down" ... AMU doesn't have a 57c SP because shareholders other than you "talk it down".
As I pointed out Wylie were only able to get a 15% stake in the Co. @ 55c because of the Co. not the shareholders.
I'm sure management would agree there is a need for accountability.
Perhaps thats why Wylie's involved? This is, after all, a public Co. not a private one.

My opinion only.

DYOR repeat DYOR.