I agree the need for a CR "Q" was evasive/misleading. The answer...

I agree the need for a CR "Q" was evasive/misleading.

The answer also displayed no remorse for allowing institutional's to get issued first allowing them to sell out below retail issue price before retail were issued.

Retail investors would have been more loyal LT holders IMO.

As I see it most of the big spending is on development and growth
(in the discretionary category).

For the money in the bank to last 18 months (6 1/4's) money spent on development and growth would need to be stopped.

I don't see that happening particularly with new product releases.

The spending situation is keeping me out due to the high probability potential for a CR soon.

The cash burn rate in the next quarterly report will make my mind up, that is unless there is a CR before that time.

Regards Mark H