FX,What you say makes perfect sense to me. I have been arguing...

FX,
What you say makes perfect sense to me. I have been arguing that the company needs to "grow up" and transition to a mature enterprise (as opposed to an entrepreneurial start up with excellent IP prospects).
I appreciate that we are in a difficult industry at the best of times with long lead times and high expense to get IP converted to marketable product. I also appreciate that we are still in the back-wash of the GFC where it is difficult to access substantial funds for product development, thus necessitating some creative novel methods and greater than normal flexibility. I also "get" that business is done differently in parts of Asia, but haven't we seen with the whole Securancy debacle that Australian companies cannot afford to lower established and mandated corporate standards....?
What I am not convinced about is that our Board "gets" that a genuine owning up to any mistakes of the past coupled with a genuine commitment to transparency will dramatically improve the SP regardless of anything else. This is simply because the IP is SO good and has such a HUGE potential market.
RB is correct when he points to our company being very closely held and very thinly traded. There are even less shares up for grabs now than when I last posted on the subject. It seems inevitable on a supply and demand basis that SP will move higher (perhaps despite the best efforts of the Board to restrain it by obfuscation on the outstanding governance questions).
However whatever else they are, John and his confederates on the Board are not fools and no doubt a large chunk of their retirement funding is tied up in NSP shares to a far greater extent than is the case for us. It appears from the unanswered questions that they may have feathered their nests rather too well in the past....but am I wrong in the simple assumption that it is also in their interests to see the SP rise? Or is the governance malaise perhaps due to a deliberate policy to retain closely held and thinly traded shares at any price to protect from takeover, such is their belief in the upside of the IP our products and the future prospects for them and their family wealth as substantial shareholders? Just wondering out loud, because like you and Kosenar I can't for the life of me understand why these hoary old questions aren't answered so we can all move on and the SP upwards.
BTW you won't get a response or apology from RB for some time as he has been suspended again for 7 days.
Regards,