SYTE - Enterprise Diversified

[Sunrider]

 

To clarify, I did indeed mean the second 0.05 offering, not the first one done to take over the company from the original CEO.

 

On the fligpside, the .048 offer was open to all qualified investors if I recall correctly.

C.

 

I do not believe this to be the case. Please show me that it is, so that I can correct my public statements, if necessary.

 

It's true, I contacted them and was sent subscription information.  There are rules about companies soliciting for rights offerings.

 

I'm watching something similar in Aztec Land and Cattle.  They held a rights offering last year, and one this year.  To an outside observer it's just happening.  There are 'special' stockholders who are backstopping it.  But I also know that anyone accredited can subscribe, but you need to call the company and let them know you're interested.  The backstock shareholders were just a few individuals who were in contact with the company and in a position to move on this.

 

I'll say this on the situation.  I think optics matter, Inelegant from your vantage point you have a lot of well founded points and I understand your perspective.  I've also seen how the sausage is made so to speak and see the other side.

 

If this was a vanilla company where I didn't know the people involved personally I'd be very worried about perceived red flags.  But after seeing behind the curtain I understand what's going on and I don't have the same view.

 

I don't want to speak for Steve, but I think they're doing their own filings.  My guess is they're overly conservative in what they're releasing because they don't want to find themselves in a legal nightmare regarding disclosure.

 

In the end everyone needs to make their own decisions.  I agree with Sanjeev that most outside investors underestimate the amount of work anyone running a company has to do.  It's easy to pick apart what a company is doing from afar, but when actually in the weeds it's difficult to keep all the balls in motion.

Just to clarify, are you saying you received subscription information for the first offering or the second?

In the Aztec situation, they proactively reached out to shareholders to see who might be interested in participating. Even shareholders with very small stakes. I appreciate your understanding. The real tragedy is how unnecessary this was. They could have accomplished exactly the same things while being respectful of all shareholders. That they chose not to is, in my mind, quite telling.

[InelegantInvestor]

 

To clarify, I did indeed mean the second 0.05 offering, not the first one done to take over the company from the original CEO.

 

To clarify, they had already taken over prior to the first offering. The offering doubled the shares outstanding and gave Mr. Kiel more than a majority.

[oddballstocks]

On the fligpside, the .048 offer was open to all qualified investors if I recall correctly.

C.

 

I do not believe this to be the case. Please show me that it is, so that I can correct my public statements, if necessary.

 

It's true, I contacted them and was sent subscription information.  There are rules about companies soliciting for rights offerings.

 

I'm watching something similar in Aztec Land and Cattle.  They held a rights offering last year, and one this year.  To an outside observer it's just happening.  There are 'special' stockholders who are backstopping it.  But I also know that anyone accredited can subscribe, but you need to call the company and let them know you're interested.  The backstock shareholders were just a few individuals who were in contact with the company and in a position to move on this.

 

I'll say this on the situation.  I think optics matter, Inelegant from your vantage point you have a lot of well founded points and I understand your perspective.  I've also seen how the sausage is made so to speak and see the other side.

 

If this was a vanilla company where I didn't know the people involved personally I'd be very worried about perceived red flags.  But after seeing behind the curtain I understand what's going on and I don't have the same view.

 

I don't want to speak for Steve, but I think they're doing their own filings.  My guess is they're overly conservative in what they're releasing because they don't want to find themselves in a legal nightmare regarding disclosure.

 

In the end everyone needs to make their own decisions.  I agree with Sanjeev that most outside investors underestimate the amount of work anyone running a company has to do.  It's easy to pick apart what a company is doing from afar, but when actually in the weeds it's difficult to keep all the balls in motion.

Just to clarify, are you saying you received subscription information for the first offering or the second?

In the Aztec situation, they proactively reached out to shareholders to see who might be interested in participating. Even shareholders with very small stakes. I appreciate your understanding. The real tragedy is how unnecessary this was. They could have accomplished exactly the same things while being respectful of all shareholders. That they chose not to is, in my mind, quite telling.

 

I don't remember which, probably the second offering.

 

Friends of friends seed investing. well played sir

 

Nate and Jeff at the very least are very honorable men from all of my interactions with them. I don't think the implication that there are special favors going on is fair to them, or to Kiel himself.

 

Subjective

 

I never purchased any shares, I just inquired and was sent material.

 

Scott, appreciate the kind words. 

 

Premfan, sorry to see you have such a poor opinion of me based on your own alternative facts.

 

Oh no judgement on you. I followed you since the beginning of the micro cap network phenomena. You are a great story teller and marketer.

 

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.  Classic mistake from just reading vs speaking etc. 

[rkbabang]

Two more form 4's today: http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/SYTE/filings

 

Arquitos Capital Partners, LP acquires 60,000,000 shares @ $0.05

 

Jeffery Moore acquires 1.5M shares directly and 3M indirectly @ $0.05

 

So it looks like with these transactions the company raised another $3.225M in cash and issued another 64.5M shares.

 

[gfp]

A bit more than that -

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1096934/000072174817000058/0000721748-17-000058-index.htm

 

Two more form 4's today: http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/SYTE/filings

 

Arquitos Capital Partners, LP acquires 60,000,000 shares @ $0.05

 

Jeffery Moore acquires 1.5M shares directly and 3M indirectly @ $0.05

 

So it looks like with these transactions the company raised another $3.225M in cash and issued another 64.5M shares.

[LowIQinvestor]

slight tangent but thought people here might know the answer:

 

What does it cost annually to maintain an OTC public listing?

 

Trying to figure out at what market cap does it simply become uneconomical to maintain.

 

Thanks!

[andgroup]

Inelegant!  I am sure you are a very nice person and congrats on the baby.  But seriously man, do we have to hear you squeal like a stuck pig, every single time something happens at Sitestar?  For once it would be nice to do a search to read up on the company and not have to read everything about you and your entitlement issues.  We get it, you're mad.  You feel as though you have been morally wronged.  We've seen you on your soapbox and endured your platitudes.  Now, do we all have to keep hearing about it?  Talk about beating a dead horse.  I personally think that given the issues with the old CEO and the amount of skin that Steven had in the game already.  That his doubling of the shares, putting his money where his mouth was and taking control over the company was a pretty damn genius move.  Judging from the stock price, I cannot see how you have been anything but helped by his presence there.  If this investment operation had not moved forward, you'd still be sitting on a 3 cent stock.  If this is how petty you are about things, it does nothing but improve my confidence level in Mr. Kiel, that he had the foresight to sidestep you, and leave you out of the loop, although I seriously doubt that was his motive, but if it was that's even better.

 

 

 

To clarify, I did indeed mean the second 0.05 offering, not the first one done to take over the company from the original CEO.

 

To clarify, they had already taken over prior to the first offering. The offering doubled the shares outstanding and gave Mr. Kiel more than a majority.

[LC]

As someone on the outside looking in, I appreciate seeing both sides to the story.

[InelegantInvestor]

Inelegant!  I am sure you are a very nice person and congrats on the baby.  But seriously man, do we have to hear you squeal like a stuck pig, every single time something happens at Sitestar?  For once it would be nice to do a search to read up on the company and not have to read everything about you and your entitlement issues.  We get it, you're mad.  You feel as though you have been morally wronged.  We've seen you on your soapbox and endured your platitudes.  Now, do we all have to keep hearing about it?  Talk about beating a dead horse.  I personally think that given the issues with the old CEO and the amount of skin that Steven had in the game already.  That his doubling of the shares, putting his money where his mouth was and taking control over the company was a pretty damn genius move.  Judging from the stock price, I cannot see how you have been anything but helped by his presence there.  If this investment operation had not moved forward, you'd still be sitting on a 3 cent stock.  If this is how petty you are about things, it does nothing but improve my confidence level in Mr. Kiel, that he had the foresight to sidestep you, and leave you out of the loop, although I seriously doubt that was his motive, but if it was that's even better.

 

 

 

To clarify, I did indeed mean the second 0.05 offering, not the first one done to take over the company from the original CEO.

 

To clarify, they had already taken over prior to the first offering. The offering doubled the shares outstanding and gave Mr. Kiel more than a majority.

 

Not sure what baby you are talking about. Perhaps you are confusing me with Irrelevant Investor?

 

As for your argument, I am sorry that bothers you to see my thoughts on this stock. Not that I have shared any in a month. It would be more convincing, however, if you attempted to refute any of my claims or concerns rather than sidestep them, but that's just me. What it comes down to is that I believe strongly that integrity counts. This is the same reason I have repeatedly spoken out against Sardar Biglari. Ends do not justify means.

[InelegantInvestor]

As someone on the outside looking in, I appreciate seeing both sides to the story.

Thank you. I acknowledge that there are two sides, and I believe that mine has some merit.

[writser]

Ignore the troll. Criticism is always appreciated.

[Travis Wiedower]

As someone on the outside looking in, I appreciate seeing both sides to the story.

 

+1. Most investment threads could use more comments on the bear case. Most threads are a bunch of bulls confirmation biasing themselves into oblivion.

[andgroup]

Inelegant.

 

Sorry about the mixup with Irrelevant Investor.

 

That said, I am not sidestepping any issue with you. I as a fellow shareholder of Sitestar and citizen of a capitalist society do not see where Steven Kiel owes you any explanation of his investment operations nor do I acknowledge that he must seek your moral guidance before he is allowed to act. 

 

Nor do I see where him managing money for anyone else is any of your damn business. That's between him and his investors. Who are quite happy with him.

 

And yet, knowing all of this, the man did try to explain to you what he did and why he did it, which was a good enough reason for me. I do not think he was trying to do any harm to anyone. I think our investment is in very good hands.

 

Yes it is true that the shares were offered at 4.8 cents and the market was at 7-8 cents. But there was absolutely no liquidity at that valuation level, not enough to raise the kind of money he needed too to get to a size where numbers started to make sense. So he did a private placement at book for a company that had no established earning power. Perfectly reasonable. Now he is investing those funds to build up the earnings power, which will accrue to your benefit as long as you are a shareholder. I think he is doing a good job here.

 

Furthermore, I do not believe that just because you hold certain strong convictions about a particular issue means that you are correct in your logic or that everyone else agrees with you in your fundamental arguments.  Although some may.

 

After all means and ends are all relative. Every party has them including you. What ends are you after here? Because it sure seems to me that the means you are using could be called badgering, once it goes beyond a certain point.

 

I respect that others want to hear both sides but you've already made this point over and over again. I'm just tired of hearing it.

 

So you were not invited into the first round, did you participate in the second?  You probably could have purchased all the shares you wanted.

 

So if you'd just stop it already then maybe we could hear other things you have to say which maybe of some value. Something constructive.

 

Not that you shouldn't be heard. You should. But we've already heard you.

[InelegantInvestor]

I respect that others want to hear both sides but you've already made this point over and over again. I'm just tired of hearing it.

 

So you were not invited into the first round, did you participate in the second?  You probably could have purchased all the shares you wanted.

 

So if you'd just stop it already then maybe we could hear other things you have to say which maybe of some value. Something constructive.

 

Not that you shouldn't be heard. You should. But we've already heard you.

It's strange. I've been quiet. I have not said anything for a month. You chose to revisit this issue suddenly today.

 

That said, I am not sidestepping any issue with you. I as a fellow shareholder of Sitestar and citizen of a capitalist society do not see where Steven Kiel owes you any explanation of his investment operations nor do I acknowledge that he must seek your moral guidance before he is allowed to act. 

 

Nor do I see where him managing money for anyone else is any of your damn business. That's between him and his investors. Who are quite happy with him.

 

What does being "a citizen of a capitalist society" have to do with anything? Are you implying that morality is socialist?

Mr. Kiel is the CEO of the company. He is in the employ of the shareholders. He has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of shareholders, not himself. This is a public company, and the same demands he made of Mr. Erhatric should apply to him.

 

 

Yes it is true that the shares were offered at 4.8 cents and the market was at 7-8 cents. But there was absolutely no liquidity at that valuation level, not enough to raise the kind of money he needed too to get to a size where numbers started to make sense. So he did a private placement at book for a company that had no established earning power. Perfectly reasonable. Now he is investing those funds to build up the earnings power, which will accrue to your benefit as long as you are a shareholder. I think he is doing a good job here.

 

The need for additional capital was Mr. Kiel's, not the company's.

 

As I said, I was really done debating this. However, as you've brought it up, I feel I need to respond.

[andgroup]

Inelegant,

 

I was out of town on other business for a few weeks and I come home to see what is happening with Sitestar. Then I find myself just swimming thru all this bs again. Honestly, I'd like a chance to hear from you more. You're obviously a smart guy but we seriously disagree here.

 

The reason I mentioned living in a capitalist society is because capitalism is based on rational self interest which is what I assume we are all doing here, investing in order to make a return for ourselves and families. Steve Kiel has a right to do the same thing and so I hope he does.  He also has a responsibility to other people besides "just you and your wishes." 

 

I'm not implying that morality is socialism but I am implying that your platitudes about "ends don't justify the means" repeated over and over sort of assumes that everyone here accepts "your morality" as their own, and therefore this puts you in the right. I am challenging the whole premise that anything you are saying is right.

 

You are not a moral dictator here sir, and nobody here is "required" to accept "your definition" of what is moral or what isn't.

 

If Steven Kiel is acting as an investor himself, a fiduciary for his own investors, as well as an unpaid CEO with far more skin in the game than you and if he decides that this business could be worth far far more money in the long run as a going concern rather than a liquidation play which is obviously what you wanted. I can only say one thing. I, for one, am glad that other shareholders can vote you down because I'm in agreement with them and with my shares I will join them in doing just that.

 

What on earth makes you think that in the event of a disagreement about the future direction of this company that you have a lock on what is right or moral?  You don't.  Or that he is not acting as a proper fiduciary?  I disagree with you. I think that is exactly what he is doing.

 

So the main problem is that you are not some defender of morality as you imagine yourself to be, these are just your opinions masquerading behind a kind of moral grandstanding because you are angry that other people with far more on the line decided that this enterprise would be more valuable as a going concern. You do not have any moral high ground here.

 

I want Steven Kiel and the board of directors to take this company and make it as valuable as they can for as long as they can and ignore people like you.  As far as I am concerned that is the proper end goal and I have no problems with the means they are exercising to get there.

 

I am finished with this argument as well and I hope this puts an end to it. Everyone knows you're upset you don't have to say it again.

 

Now let's move on to more friendly conversations.

 

Respectfully.

[Sunrider]

group,

 

As someone who (marginally) participated in this debate - I really don't understand why you're going after this person with a long post. I for one certainly didn't take away from his writing what you allege, such as that he requires everyone to agree with his logic or assessment of the morality of actions. He expressed his view, others did the same. (Admittedly, that was a month ago and perhaps my memory fails me but I don't recall having that reaction/take-away.)

 

We all read, think, debate, disagree and sometimes are swayed; sometimes we aren't.

 

That is what makes great debate and, ultimately, a great society. We have too much 'the other side is evil' in discourse these days. Society is about getting along, forging compromise and enabling everyone to live within a reliable system of guaranteed basic rights (including having an opinion) that is universally respected. Sadly, in many parts of the world that basic shared understanding is under attack these days ("alt facts" anyone --- try "lie" to replace the euphemism).

 

Coming back to the stock at hand: I happen to be an investor in Sytestar but I share some of the concerns voiced here. I simply decided to see what Kiel does going forward. If this act turns out to have been the Canary in the proverbial then that's my misassessment, if not then great. No need to go after someone accusing her/him of something that others didn't seem to get from what was written (in my view). In many ways, that seems to be doing exactly what you allege was done to you in a gut reaction against a view you disagree with - or at least that's what it seems like reading it. Your actual motivations might be different.

 

Cheers!

C.

 

 

 

Inelegant,

 

I was out of town on other business for a few weeks and I come home to see what is happening with Sitestar. Then I find myself just swimming thru all this bs again. Honestly, I'd like a chance to hear from you more. You're obviously a smart guy but we seriously disagree here.

 

The reason I mentioned living in a capitalist society is because capitalism is based on rational self interest which is what I assume we are all doing here, investing in order to make a return for ourselves and families. Steve Kiel has a right to do the same thing and so I hope he does.  He also has a responsibility to other people besides "just you and your wishes." 

 

I'm not implying that morality is socialism but I am implying that your platitudes about "ends don't justify the means" repeated over and over sort of assumes that everyone here accepts "your morality" as their own, and therefore this puts you in the right. I am challenging the whole premise that anything you are saying is right.

 

You are not a moral dictator here sir, and nobody here is "required" to accept "your definition" of what is moral or what isn't.

 

If Steven Kiel is acting as an investor himself, a fiduciary for his own investors, as well as an unpaid CEO with far more skin in the game than you and if he decides that this business could be worth far far more money in the long run as a going concern rather than a liquidation play which is obviously what you wanted. I can only say one thing. I, for one, am glad that other shareholders can vote you down because I'm in agreement with them and with my shares I will join them in doing just that.

 

What on earth makes you think that in the event of a disagreement about the future direction of this company that you have a lock on what is right or moral?  You don't.  Or that he is not acting as a proper fiduciary?  I disagree with you. I think that is exactly what he is doing.

 

So the main problem is that you are not some defender of morality as you imagine yourself to be, these are just your opinions masquerading behind a kind of moral grandstanding because you are angry that other people with far more on the line decided that this enterprise would be more valuable as a going concern. You do not have any moral high ground here.

 

I want Steven Kiel and the board of directors to take this company and make it as valuable as they can for as long as they can and ignore people like you.  As far as I am concerned that is the proper end goal and I have no problems with the means they are exercising to get there.

 

I am finished with this argument as well and I hope this puts an end to it. Everyone knows you're upset you don't have to say it again.

 

Now let's move on to more friendly conversations.

 

Respectfully.

[Travis Wiedower]

andgroup,

 

Many of the things you are accusing Inelegant of:

 

1. He is not guilty of.

 

2. You are guilty of.

[rkbabang]

group,

 

As someone who (marginally) participated in this debate - I really don't understand why you're going after this person with a long post. I for one certainly didn't take away from his writing what you allege, such as that he requires everyone to agree with his logic or assessment of the morality of actions. He expressed his view, others did the same. (Admittedly, that was a month ago and perhaps my memory fails me but I don't recall having that reaction/take-away.)

 

We all read, think, debate, disagree and sometimes are swayed; sometimes we aren't.

 

That is what makes great debate and, ultimately, a great society. We have too much 'the other side is evil' in discourse these days. Society is about getting along, forging compromise and enabling everyone to live within a reliable system of guaranteed basic rights (including having an opinion) that is universally respected. Sadly, in many parts of the world that basic shared understanding is under attack these days ("alt facts" anyone --- try "lie" to replace the euphemism).

 

Coming back to the stock at hand: I happen to be an investor in Sytestar but I share some of the concerns voiced here. I simply decided to see what Kiel does going forward. If this act turns out to have been the Canary in the proverbial then that's my misassessment, if not then great. No need to go after someone accusing her/him of something that others didn't seem to get from what was written (in my view). In many ways, that seems to be doing exactly what you allege was done to you in a gut reaction against a view you disagree with - or at least that's what it seems like reading it. Your actual motivations might be different.

 

Cheers!

C.

 

+1.  I am also a SYTE investor and am grateful for Inelegant's posts.  I also have some misgivings about the first capital raise, but have decided to stay invested.  There is never harm in hearing both all sides.  And I don't think he has posted too much on this issue, I certainly haven't been sick of reading his views.  Maybe because I tend to agree with them, but still, I think the recent posts pleading with someone to be quiet about what they think are not useful.

 

[andgroup]

I made the point that I wanted to make.

 

It is simply this.

 

I am looking to make investments that will do well over time.

 

On the one hand you have a company along with its stock that was totally destroyed from what? 1999-2015. So for at least 16 years, you had value being consistently destroyed.

 

Some investors on this board along with Steven Kiel come into the company and literally within a year, old diminishing assets are sold, accounting controls were put into place, problems with the SEC were cleaned up, the balance sheet is extremely strong now, you have a small brain trust being built out, and many opportunities for future prosperity are now a real possibility.

 

So that from 2015-2016 you now have a solid company that is poised for growth.

 

The stock price has continued to climb.

 

Then one investor who is obviously upset because he wasn't allowed to control the future direction of the company turns all of these developments into a negative?

 

Step back and take a look. You have witnessed more value being created inside this stock in 1 year than in the previous 16 years.

 

It makes zero sense to me. I mean if what is happening does not look positive to you then I'd hate to see the situations that you believe are really bad.

 

So from what I'm looking at I think the people who are disparaging this man are total fools. But to each his own.

 

I'm just saying I'm glad the future of this company is in the hands of the people who are now in control. They will have my support as long as they continue to create value which I suspect has a very very long runway.

 

I have zero problems with Mr Kiel taking control, I think we are all better off for it, and I also have no problems with him being compensated or sharing in the wealth he is busy creating for himself and all of us.

 

I just wanted it on the record that not everyone agrees with Inelegant. I am one of them.

 

[rkbabang]

I made the point that I wanted to make.

 

It is simply this.

 

I am looking to make investments that will do well over time.

 

On the one hand you have a company along with its stock that was totally destroyed from what? 1999-2015. So for at least 16 years, you had value being consistently destroyed.

 

Some investors on this board along with Steven Kiel come into the company and literally within a year, old diminishing assets are sold, accounting controls were put into place, problems with the SEC were cleaned up, the balance sheet is extremely strong now, you have a small brain trust being built out, and many opportunities for future prosperity are now a real possibility.

 

So that from 2015-2016 you now have a solid company that is poised for growth.

 

The stock price has continued to climb.

 

Then one investor who is obviously upset because he wasn't allowed to control the future direction of the company turns all of these developments into a negative?

 

Step back and take a look. You have witnessed more value being created inside this stock in 1 year then in the previous 16 years.

 

It makes zero sense to me. I mean if what is happening does not look positive to you then I'd hate to see the situations that you believe are really bad.

 

So from what I'm looking at I think the people who are disparaging this man are total fools. But to each his own.

 

I'm just saying I'm glad the future of this company is in the hands of the people who are now in control. They will have my support as long as they continue to create value which I suspect has a very very long runway.

 

I have zero problems with Mr Kiel taking control, I think we are all better off for it, and I also have no problems with him being compensated or sharing in then wealth he is busy creating.

 

I just wanted it on the record that not everyone agrees with Inelegant. I am one of them.

 

 

 

It isn't black and white.  I agree with a lot of what you say, which is why I still hold my shares, but that doesn't mean I don't also agree with InelegantInvestor's analysis of the first capital raise.  CEO's aren't all either angels or devils, there is a lot of grey area inbetween.  Don't turn someone into a hero in your mind, be wary and critical of every CEO in every company you own.  They are only human after all.

 

[andgroup]

rkbabang,

 

You and I agree totally. I'm all for critical thinking.

 

I also agree that CEOs are human, so you'll forgive me when I see an investor who has been extremely successful, who is putting skin in the game, laying out a lot of his own reputational and financial capital to help clean up a mess.

 

Not being crazy about the idea of leaving the largest decisions in the company up to a 2% owner, who wants it liquidated.

 

Steven Kiel should not be expected to instantly know who his friends are in the hostile kind of environment that preceded his arrival. Nor does it mean he is crooked because he wanted as few variables and potential surprises as possible.

 

That is why I have zero problems with the first capital raise. His commitment to do the right things for all of us investors could not be more heavily demonstrated in actions not words, by the fact that he has more to lose than anyone if it goes bad. That should speak volumes.

[InelegantInvestor]

rkbabang,

 

 

Not being crazy about the idea of leaving the largest decisions in the company up to a 2% owner.

 

 

Just to be clear, I never made the claim that the largest decisions in the company should be made by a 2% owner. I merely said that the fundamental direction of the company and the makeup of its Board should be subject to a vote of shareholders. It never was, until Mr. Kiel had sold himself a majority stake. If you're going to attack my claim, please attack the one that I actually made.

 

 

[andgroup]

Inelegant,

 

You wrote an entire article which was very derogatory towards Steven Kiel and the board, essentially acting as if their ownership was meaningless in terms of determining the future direction of the company, when they had more invested than anyone.

 

You pointed out that Mr Erhartic's shares "did not vote", which one can easily assume that he would have if he would have had a realistic chance to remove the people who just removed him from more than a decade long massacre of the company and stock.

 

Then you went on about the remaining 9 million "independent" shares (out of 95 million) and how a significant (not a majority) percentage of that minority withheld.

 

The old regime who had been extremely destructive of shareholder values would not have their grip on power broken so easily.

 

I'm glad it was.

 

And while you are now saying the 2% shouldn't be making all the decisions, at the very least your articles strongly imply that less than half of the "independent" shares should have been allowed to select the board members and that would have charted the companies future.

 

If that ain't the tail wagging the dog then I don't know what is. I'm glad we didn't go your route.

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

Step back and take a look. You have witnessed more value being created inside this stock in 1 year than in the previous 16 years.

...

So from what I'm looking at I think the people who are disparaging this man are total fools. But to each his own.

Now I am out, I swore I wouldn't reply anymore in this thread, but you really should take a look at yourself. Calling someone a fool for disagreeing with your opinion isn't going to get you very far in life.

 

Secondly, from a book value per share metric, I would argue that we haven't seen very much value creation at all.

[InelegantInvestor]

Inelegant,

 

You wrote an entire article which was very derogatory towards Steven Kiel and the board, essentially acting as if their ownership was meaningless in terms of determining the future direction of the company, when they had more invested than anyone.

 

You pointed out that Mr Erhartic's shares "did not vote", which one can easily assume that he would have if he would have had a realistic chance to remove the people who just removed him from more than a decade long massacre of the company and stock.

 

Then you went on about the remaining 9 million "independent" shares (out of 95 million) and how a significant (not a majority) percentage of that minority withheld.

 

The old regime who had been extremely destructive of shareholder values would not have their grip on power broken so easily.

 

I'm glad it was.

 

And while you are now saying the 2% shouldn't be making all the decisions, at the very least your articles strongly imply that less than half of the "independent" shares should have been allowed to select the board members and that would have charted the companies future.

 

If that ain't the tail wagging the dog then I don't know what is. I'm glad we didn't go your route.

 

The shares that should have not counted that I referred to were the ones that Kiel sold himself and other Board members prior to the vote that guaranteed him a majority.

 

It seems that you agree with me that a minority of shareholders should not decide the direction of the company. Prior to the offering, the Board controlled less than a quarter of the company. Kiel himself controlled far less. How can you argue that they are the only minority holders who should have had a say?

 

You can read what I'm actually saying, or you can keep reading into it what you wish to. I would really prefer that you choose the former.