61 million shares (8 sellers) sell position at 0.002. Those sellers might be those persons or parties which were given special privilege to buy at 0.001 in order to spread the holding to retail holders as one of the conditions for relisting by the ASX. However, the board chose NOT to offer those shares to old VPR (ERJ) retail shareholders instead they offered it to non-shareholders. If the board did allocate to those old VPR holders, this selling would not happen since average cost of most VPR holders are more likely to be above 0.010. Who should be blamed for this situation? In this case, the board should be able to answer this question. Pay for performance? Is it? Hope the controlling shareholders (ECM) and the CEO and members of the board could reflect it. ECM is a privately owned company which differs from VPR, a publicly listed company. The board should treat VPR as a publicly listed company rather than as a privately owned company. Since VPR is a start-up company with large information gap, the board should proactively update shareholders in particular to retail shareholders. The performance of share price is determined by retail holders who are actively trading the shares (buy and sell) and not by controlling shareholders (ECM, CEO and other board members).
VPR Price at posting:
0.2¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
