The company representative doth protest too much, methinks
@Neil1959 do you think that there is a limit to how much a company can say to defend itself and as a result lose more credibility than it originally had?
If the company would just stop delivering "management and rent" funds to private companies held in the names of the directors, I think there wouldn't be much need for all the vows of sincerity QBL keeps floating as shareholders would naturally trust them. Based on what has been said by posters and met with the silence of the company, it is very clear that shareholders are shaken. The questionable history of the company and previous companies held by directors is what is really hurting this company short term and while it might be forgotten in a year or two, the questions will no doubt return.
AGMPL for example. Is it an actual company managed by people other than the Feldmans or is it just a company that they use as a tax deduction and they manage it themselves? I would just be happy to know either way. Ultimately doing so is not illegal and ideally if the company was privately owned it would be extremely smart business, but it does make me question the overall intentions of the directors and Volcan, Rose Gold and possibly the new acquisitions etc etc are all prime examples of why shareholders are discouraged currently.
Both Pnina and Sholom do have a bit of ground work to do for shareholders peace of mind. The announcements currently feeding us just aren't good enough with the amount of non committal wording or fluffing misdirection. Let us all try to be honest.
A prime example of fluff is saying to intelligent people who can read between the lines that the questioned cultivator was not an employee yet. Doubtful to say the least. Irrespective of whether or not he was guilty or not, to say he wasn't employed suggests that QBL is in the business of promoting people who aren't employed already. The protest to it and the initial post on Facebook both scream desperation in my opinion.
There is growing support for the introduction of a independent director by many shareholders (either officially or unofficially) and if QBL is serious about gaining back the trust and really making inroads for investor confidence and the future of the business that has great potential, it would have already been discussed and most likely brought forward as a matter of urgency instead of waiting in an EGM. The question is, can the directors allow some control to go to someone not connected to the family and will it benefit them? I think yes it will benefit them and all shareholders.
While there is most likely no chance an EGM would signify a director change, mainly due to majority shares being held within the one family, it is very important and prudent (the proper use of the word prudent) for the company to understand that the directors are very much being put on display and the skeletons in the closet are scaring a lot of people and they need to be put to rest not by words but by
significant and strategic actions.
