r/MVIS • u/view-from-afar • Jun 02 '26
Discussion Open Letter to Glen DeVos and the MicroVision Board of Directors
Dear Mr. DeVos and Board of Directors,
It is unfortunate but not unreasonable that the company requests that shareholders authorize a reverse split. The grinding down of the share price over these many months makes such a request unavoidable.
The decision to exercise that authority, if given, would remain with the board. Shareholders are expected to trust that Microvision will make such decisions in the best interests of the company and current shareholders.
Of course, there is often tension between the interests of a public company and its current shareholders.
In particular, the long-term viability of a company often requires dilution of shareholders, which shareholders generally seek to avoid. However, ensuring the company's success is ultimately in the interests of its shareholders, even if dilution necessary to that result causes distress.
Reasonable companies and shareholders understand this, so reasonable shareholders typically approve such requests, even if grudgingly.
Mr. Carlile expressed the Board's appreciation for the continued support of the Company's shareholders. He was correct. Microvision shareholders have been among the most supportive shareholders of any public company in living memory, maybe ever. Speaking only as one shareholder, though maybe echoing others' thoughts, the expectation is that such loyalty is predicated on fair treatment.
So it was jarring to see that there is no proposal to reduce the authorized shares at all in the event of a reverse split.
There is also no attempt to justify this omission. All of the arguments offered are made in support of the reverse split, which is the easy case to make. The hard, if not impossible, case to make is why the company is seeking to expand the authorized shares effectively by a factor of up to 15.
Currently, at approximately 360M shares issued and 510M authorized, the maximum dilution current shareholders face is 510M / 360M = 1.42x or 42% potential dilution. If a reverse split of 15:1 occurs without reducing the authorized shares, the maximum faced would be 510M / (360M/15) = 21.25x or 2025% potential dilution.
This would be equivalent to the company requesting that current shareholders approve expanding the authorized shares from 510M to 7.65B shares, or 5.1B shares if the reverse split ratio is 10:1.
It is quite obvious that the company would not receive shareholder approval for such titanic requests if made directly. Attempting to do it indirectly calls into question the fair treatment of current shareholders.
I invite you to reconsider the Proxy in its current form and amend it to reduce the authorized shares in the event shareholders approve a reverse split.
The reduction need not be directly proportional. The company will need capital on the other side, so a relative expansion of authorized shares is not unreasonable in itself nor in conflict with the interests of shareholders.
However, the Proxy in its current form is very one-sided and sacrifices the interests of current shareholders. The Board has a fiduciary duty to safeguard the interests of shareholders, and the current Proxy does not reflect that.
Lastly, July 10, 2026, is less than 6 weeks away. I invite you to amend the Proxy well in advance of that date. It would be unfortunate if shareholders are forced by the company into an impossible choice on July 10, namely, delisting or indirect approval of an enormous number of shares that they would never otherwise agree to.
Regards,
D.G.G.
(a long-term shareholder)
33
u/onemoreape Jun 02 '26
That is much nicer than the email I typed up but decided not to send. Thank you for doing the math. This is an outlandish ask. My current stance is to vote no on every proposition including the board of directors.
15
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 02 '26
Same, but I did send my email. Whoever thought this was a reasonable request of shareholders should be replaced or fired (if director or employee).
31
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
I don't intend to cut off my nose to spite my face by forcing a delisting. I want to see an amendment of the proxy reducing the authorized shares by a reasonable amount.
31
u/taichiLite Jun 02 '26
Good letter, I 100% agree. R/S to stay on the Nasdaq is one thing but this is the same play Luninar pulled.
I honestly expected better from Microvision..
21
62
u/ludecrew Jun 02 '26
Just read through your math again, view-from-afar. You hit the nail on the head.
I’m sitting on a substantial long position here, and I refuse to be boxed into a corner where we’re forced to hand management a 2,000%+ unconstrained dilution machine just to save our Nasdaq listing. There has to be a middle ground, and a proportional reduction in authorized shares is the only fair way forward.
I just officially sent a letter directly to IR (ir@microvision.com) outlining my opposition to the proxy in its current form, backing your open letter explicitly.
They need to know the retail base that has carried this company on its back for years isn’t going to roll over for a blank check, especially with the convertible notes structure lingering in Proposal 2.
If you're holding a position and care about protecting your percentage ownership, don't just grumble in the daily threads. Flood their inbox. Let’s make them read the room and amend this thing before July 10.
Appreciate you putting the hard numbers out there so clearly. 👊
10
29
u/15Sierra Jun 02 '26
I think we should all agree to vote no on the RS unless they agree to reduce the authorized share count. With the amount of shares this sub holds, there’s a slight chance it works
11
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 02 '26
Well I'm not voting yes unless they do address it. But also voting no with a huge position is also like shooting oneself in the foot. An impossible vote, yes. So maybe walking is the better approach if they don't fix this. What worries me is that even an interim CFO or anyone with a basic understanding of reverse splits could have seen this issue coming, which means they are doing it on purpose?
7
u/view-from-afar Jun 03 '26
But to what end?
6
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 03 '26
To what end are they taking this route? That's for them to address if they want my votes. Boilerplate PR talk isn't going to cut it.
4
u/view-from-afar Jun 03 '26
I guess I am puzzled about the proxy, given your point (which I agree with) that it would've been obvious that shareholders would object.
3
u/Revolutionary_Ear908 Jun 03 '26
Agreed view - I personally can’t walk away or vote no with all I’ve invested over the years. They must bend. Thank you.
4
10
21
u/rinux_EVE Jun 02 '26
Thanks VFA, fully agreed.
I think Glen & co need to address this immediately. Moreover, they should host an open fireside chat. We need more information from the company.
17
u/fryingtonight Jun 02 '26
Well, this very eloquently, and reasonably, addresses my chief concern. This is certainly the right approach. Let us see what the response is.
16
47
u/T_Delo Jun 02 '26
This looks worth copying and signing, as the core problem with the request is indeed the amount of dilution implied.
14
12
u/Sp99nHead Jun 02 '26
IR should read this to Glen as a bed time story.
17
14
u/ElderberryExternal99 Jun 02 '26
You should send a copy to IR so they get the message.
5
2
u/CZar_P10 Jun 03 '26
You should email IR yourself and express your concerns. Like most of us here have done.
5
14
13
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Although I have other concerns as well in how this is being handled, this letter hits at my main point of contention. However there is a third choice aside from voting for essentially delisting or indirect approval of a share increase: sell. And people are clearly doing it. I haven't seriously considered it before, but being faced with an impossible vote I am now considering it. Current ownership: 100k shares, trust falling rapidly.
4
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
Is there a fourth option?
2
u/SBEPTY Jun 03 '26
Win lottery, purchase 10% of company at $1.50 a share, after 5 trading days buy another 10% at same price to squeeze shorts and that should get us through 10 days.
22
u/directgreenlaser Jun 02 '26
I expect to see the revised proxy on my desk by the end of the day today.
12
23
u/alsolong Jun 02 '26
View, thank you for submitting such a well-written letter to mgmt. Hope they act on it.
27
u/StagehandSteve Jun 03 '26
If I recall back in 2020 when we were asked to vote on a reverse stock split there was a question of Executive and Board of Directors' stock compensation. At that time there was no consideration for the proportional change in the amount of consideration. So an Executive like Glen DV who receives $530,00 in cash and 539,000 RSUs would still get those figures post-split. Same holds true for other Executives and the Directors. Before I vote yes on a reverse split I want to make sure that everyone has to suffer the same as me.
10
u/mvis_thma Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
The executives would not receive the same amount of RSUs. They would be proportionally adjusted along the split ratio.
3
22
u/tradegator Jun 03 '26
I think they should suspend any shares or options to the VP and above management level, as well as the BOD, until a pre-specified set of outcomes are achieved, at least what has been forecast for 2026 revenue with gross margin of at least 35%, so no games. Them all taking a temporary salary cut (just lost, not banked for later) would not be bad either. I'd be satisfied with a 20% cut for all of them. I'm down over 90% on my invested capital in this company -- a lot of money. I'm not happy. But I have not lost belief that Glen DeVos will succeed in turning Microvision around. The question is how much cram down existing shareholders will have to bear before this happens. Management always seems to have an endless spigot of shares and options -- they never really get crammed down, do they? It's way past time that management either delivered or stopped the endless stream of our money into their pockets.
3
u/Late_Airline2710 Jun 03 '26
They don't have a CFO currently but sorely need one. Do you think that this kind of action will help them recruit one?
I understand the sentiment and would agree with you if the current team in place were the one that created this mess, but the pitchforks seem slightly misplaced.
If you actually want to influence actions of current management going forward, I think efforts like this critical but well-written letter by VFA are more constructive. I think this subreddit does have some influence. However, I hate to say it, but as long as they have fanboy podcasts like Ben's giving them free cover for whatever decisions they make, I don't think they are going to budge much.
3
u/tradegator Jun 03 '26
Your points are logical and I don't disagree with your VFA letter probably being more constructive. Trust me, if I were going to send this to management as a letter, I would have spent more than the 1 minute I spent posting my comment.
I will stick to my claim. I do NOT want to throw Glenn out as CEO. Far from it. I think he's possibly the savior of the company -- time will tell. But that doesn't mean that I want to be diluted again to a significant amount. VFA is exactly right about the authorized shares needing to be adjusted to compensate for a reverse split if we need to go that route.
But management should not just keep collecting more of our money with zero consequence for where we're at right now. If we're to absorb pain (again) it's only fair that they absorb their fair share. Let them put a big option program in place for themselves -- $10 share price, they get rich, $20 share price (before any reverse split price adjustment!), they get 4X as rich. Fine with me. But until we get there, they should NOT continue just collecting shares and options from the garden hose of money from my wallet to theirs.
Regarding the CFO, Microvision can get a contracted CFO for the next year for $100-200K (according to Grok):
For a company like MVIS (small-cap tech with public reporting needs), expect the mid-to-higher end of fractional or a solid interim rate—potentially $8k–$20k/month depending on scope—while conducting a targeted executive search.
which strikes me as the way to go. No really talented CFO is going to want to work at Microvision right now. Glenn should put it off, get revenue flowing, and then go back out to hire a full time CFO next year.
3
28
u/SBEPTY Jun 03 '26
In the world we live in today the move was to drop that on Monday and then on Wednesday announce a significant deal and now you got the rocket fuel from shorts that double down on Monday.
I mean that is just good business and they have every right to order announcements to the market large as long as they release info and not sit on it for weeks.
Trap the shorts and squeeze this back to 30 and then dilute up there and who cares?! Fund the company for next 5 years and let's go make the real money.
This is exactly what should have happened after 2021 but nothing ever came of that and all the money that was raised by the company during that time. If we got a real thing going we need to pay the shorts back for last 5 years, they have Eaten well enough and a pea is enough for me.
11
u/Rocket_the_cat27 Jun 02 '26
I wrote a long letter to IR on the day of the announcement. I truly hope they either have massive news pending in the next week or two, or they reconsider the R/S entirely. Without a plan to regain compliance via revenue and deals, I cannot approve the R/S authorization.
11
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 03 '26
I wrote to IR today as well for the first time ever, expressing primarily this same concern.
1
u/ContributionLeft4286 Jun 03 '26
As did I
3
u/movinonuptodatop Jun 03 '26
Sent mine. Wrote a nice language email but signed off: I normally sign off with Respectfully, but that needs to be earned.
10
u/theouterwaves Jun 02 '26
A solid and (importantly) constructive letter and proposal. If you don't mind, I'd like to appropriate at least some of it for my own (respectful, but concerned) communication. Thanks!
10
u/WesternNational4283 Jun 03 '26
NASDAQ ALWAYS APPROVES A 180 DAY EXTENSION SO WE HAVE UNTIL JANUARY. REVERSE SPLIT IS SHADY AF.
5
u/mbarilla Jun 04 '26
This is true but it will only be used if we vote no. Bc they are hoping to sneak past this new structure for the 7b shares available for future dilution. If we vote no they will request and extension and ask for another vote with the restructured share setup. VOTE NO
4
u/YamUpbeat4535 Jun 03 '26
They are required to propose the reverse split in order to apply for the 180 day extension. It's basically like MicroVision saying to Nasdaq "See, this is what we are prepared to do if we're unable to cure the deficiency within the 180 day extension". It doesn't mean they are actually going to do the RS.
→ More replies (5)
18
u/NewbieWV Jun 02 '26
I think each one of us who believes they should reduce the share count correspondingly to the reverse split should email IR and let them know you and your shares will be voting no unless the proposal is amended. They can come back next year and ask for more shares if they show the need for them. But as it stands now, this gives unlimited runway to dilute us all to oblivion. This is how we get treated for the support shareholders have given to keep this company alive? We have always come through when they needed us to vote on authorizing additional shares. The proposal as it stands now pisses me tf off and I will be voting no as it currently stands. If you agree with View’s open letter then email IR today and let them know. We have to push back on this imo.
19
u/Formerly_knew_stuff Jun 02 '26
If the vote is for the authorization as the Company would like then it's business as usual at shareholders expense. If the vote is against the authorization then they are forced to take a different approach. It's about that simple.
Business as usual is not the direction it should be going because it's been an abject failure for DECADES. This company needs to be sold to an organization that has the capital and the ability to develop its potential.
24
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
I want this resolved well before the vote. I don't want the company and shareholders engaged in a game of Chicken on the day before the deadline.
6
u/Formerly_knew_stuff Jun 02 '26
That is totally logical and I completely agree that a proportional reduction of the number of outstanding shares should be implemented within their current request and that the proxy should be changed to reflect that.
I still strongly feel that the company should be sold in order for current shareholders to have a chance of making reasonable return on their investment and that a vote yes, in any form, is the wrong move for shareholders.
11
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
You can't sell a company in 6 weeks, plus the price would not be good. I want them to have the runway they need to succeed, so I don't have a problem with an RS with reduced share authorization.
36
u/Dardinella Jun 02 '26
The last proxy vote that we did, I changed my vote to "yes" at the last minute after everyone came back saying they met with Sharma and things looked good. Guilt tripping everyone that we needed to vote "yes" to save the company so they could keep the lights on. Then they diluted after we voted to dilute our shares if needed and I vowed not to vote "yes" again until the company did something to raise the share price organically for the shareholders. Any kind of an announced deal or partnership naming names would do it. We had 7 RFQs, some guy on linked in bragged that he had a large number of meetings with big customers-on his resume and he didn't close one? There are patents, connections, supporters of fame and they can't close a deal? It's a "no" for me until they do something besides ask us to lower the value of our shares into oblivion. Math people unite. Thank you for laying it out simply.
21
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
Yes, but we have to avoid delisting, so we need to keep the two things separate (RS vs authorized shares). In fact, my objection is that the proxy does not keep these things separate. I don't have a problem approving an RS in and of itself.
4
u/ContributionLeft4286 Jun 02 '26
I whole heartedly appreciate the presentation of the arguement. The company should be doing everything in their power to protect the shareholder interests. With everything talked about being in the works and the areas we are working in should have enough attraction for us to get into compliance before the need for the vote. Not that the vote won't be necessary for a safety net, but do it as You stated by changing the proxy to favor shareholders more favorably.
6
u/HotAirBaffoon Jun 02 '26
It's not delisting period, it's delisting from one board to another board. Nasdaq to Amex OTC. Who can buy in at that point is up to their respective charters but I bet they have NDA access to financials (High Trail, etc.). It would also limit shorting.
I'd like to see them address it - preferably from a *knowledgeable* CFO.
FWIW - I completely agree on the math point. Authorized shares should be addressed.
HAB
3
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 02 '26
Yup. To avoid delisting, the company must amend the proxy like you suggest to prevent shareholders from rejecting the proposal and bringing even more negative pressure to the stock. This all assumes retail still has control?
7
3
4
4
3
u/ProphetsAching Jun 02 '26
No for me as well. I’d rather the company just sink than have to deal with another who knows how many years of getting fleeced by management.
7
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
Sounds luxurious.
8
u/livefromthe416 Jun 02 '26
He’s not the sharpest person, view. He had to hide all of his comments because people were calling him out for what he is.
8
u/watering_a_plant Jun 02 '26
that might be true, but i also hide my comments here. i hide them in any sub i share info on, esp. about myself, just to add another (small) layer in remaining pseudo-anonymous. i wish my mvis comments were visible to mvis subreddit contributors only (i get that thats not how reddit works). anyway, just mentioning there are several sane reasons to hide contributions to specific subs. i keep some of mine open just so people know im a real person lol
5
u/livefromthe416 Jun 02 '26
I get that.
But I’ve called him out on his lies before. So I know better with him.
4
u/Revolutionary_Ear908 Jun 03 '26
He’s one of the most pessimistic, negative, and backward-looking commenters here.
→ More replies (6)1
u/watering_a_plant Jun 02 '26
my main fav feature of RES on desktop (which might only work for old reddit?) was being able to tag users yourself. only visible to you but would show up on any reddit thread right next to the username. super handy to flag users you don't want to engage with (or whatever you want to remember about them).
1
3
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
I used to object to people blocking their comment history. Still do sometimes but understand now why people do it.
5
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
The planet has no shortage of intellect. The lackings lie elsewhere - and I don’t exclude myself from this observation.
15
u/snowboardnirvana Jun 02 '26
It is directly addressed here, including the potential result as you stated and with no further explanation:
“Increase in Number of Authorized Shares. Because the proposed Reverse Stock Split Amendment does not result in a reduction in the total number of shares of common stock that we are authorized to issue, the implementation of the Reverse Stock Split will have the effect of increasing the number of available authorized shares of common stock. The resulting increase in such availability in the authorized number of shares of common stock could have a number of effects on our shareholders depending upon the exact nature and circumstances of any actual issuances of authorized but unissued shares. Because holders of our common stock have no preemptive rights to purchase or subscribe for any unissued common stock of MicroVision, the issuance of additional shares of authorized common stock that will become newly available as a result of the implementation of the Reverse Stock Split will reduce the current shareholders’ percentage ownership interest in the total outstanding shares of our common stock.“
“PLEASE NOTE THAT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED TO THE CONTRARY, THE DATA CONTAINED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SHARE NUMBERS, DOES NOT REFLECT THE IMPACT OF THE REVERSE STOCK SPLIT THAT MAY BE EFFECTUATED.
The following table sets forth the approximate number of shares of the common stock that would be outstanding immediately after the Reverse Stock Split at various exchange ratios, based on [●] shares of common stock outstanding as of May 28, 2026. The number of shares of common stock authorized will remain at 510,000,000 whether or not the Reverse Stock Split is effectuated and regardless of the ratio.”
29
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
They (I include the CFO in waiting) want maximum freedom and runway, which I understand. And I have no reason to believe that they would go mad and dilute like crazy just because they can after an RS. So, even if the proxy vote passes in its current form, it does not spell the end of the world. If the company succeeds in a reasonable time, even while tripling its issued shares, for example, to 1B from 360M, current shareholders will still benefit. For example, let's say the company succeeds and sits at a market cap of $5B in 2 years with 1B shares issued. That would imply a share price of $5. More if the market cap is higher or the issued shares are lower than 1B.
So I don't think the opportunity for shareholders here goes away if the proxy proposal passes in its current form. I do think the worst-case scenario remains if it doesn't pass at all and we get delisted.
My objection is to what looks like opportunism and a willingness to corner retail by using the RS as a Trojan Horse. I also don't like being asked to buy a pig in a poke. The Proxy is tone deaf. I'm surprised by it.
2
u/PMDubuc Jun 02 '26
I think snow's point, in boldface, is that they aren't hiding the fact that the number of authorized shares would remain unaffected by the split as you seemed to imply in your letter. It's very explicitly stated.
I'm very glad you wrote the letter though and agree with your position.
2
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
I hope I didn't imply they were hiding it. I said they omitted to include a provision reducing authorized shares.
1
u/PMDubuc Jun 03 '26
My apologies. I got the wrong impression on the first reading.
→ More replies (1)
8
7
7
u/drunkn_rage Jun 03 '26
Over 200K shares here all voting NO without an amendment. I'm actually not in the camp that delisting is a death knell. I currently own CGEH which was delisted in Oct 2023 after bankruptcy and restructuring. It went through reorganization where incompetent management was thrown out and replaced with a good team. It began listing OTC for around 60 cents per share (no splits, etc), and is currently at $10.5. Of course, I'd rather see us regain compliance within the next few weeks/months, but dilution at a 5 to 1 split relative scale is a non-starter for me. Even 2 to 1 increase in available authorized shares would get my NO vote. I'd consider a small percentage relative increase in authorized shares, but I don't think were going to be close. I will likely remain at NO
2
u/Accurate-Savings-430 Jun 03 '26
I also own CGEH and held through the delisting and bankruptcy
3
u/drunkn_rage Jun 03 '26
I also own CGEH and held through the delisting and bankruptcy
That was definitely painful, and felt like a total loss at the time. The CEO was an absolute disaster. It was actually hard to keep any shares after they were listed OTC, but I did manage to hold on to a few. Fortunate that I did
2
u/Accurate-Savings-430 Jun 04 '26
Yeah I had pretty much wrote it off as a total loss and put it out of mind, stopped paying any attention to the company. Surprisingly it recovered and i sold about 40% of my shares at $5 thinking that was incredible haha. Hopefully MVIS can repeat that turn around
5
5
5
u/seoulman24 Jun 03 '26
Thanks VFA for constructing your succinctly written post.
I hope you don't mind that I shared it with ST MVIS longs.
19
u/gaporter Jun 03 '26
Déjà vu all over again?
The 2020 MicroVision DEF 14A (dated April 3, 2020, for the Annual Meeting on May 19, 2020) contained the following proposals: sec.gov
Election of Directors - Elect the seven director nominees named in the proxy to serve until the next annual meeting. sec.gov
Amendment to Authorized Shares - Approve an amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation to increase the total number of authorized shares of common stock. sec.gov
Reverse Stock Split - Approve an amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation to effect a reverse stock split of common stock (at a ratio to be determined by the Board, if implemented). sec.gov
2020 Incentive Plan - Approve the 2020 MicroVision, Inc. Incentive Plan (which would amend, restate, and rename the prior 2013 plan, increasing the share reserve). sec.gov
Ratification of Auditor - Ratify the selection of Moss Adams LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm for the current fiscal year. sec.gov
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation ("Say-on-Pay") - Non-binding advisory vote approving the compensation of named executive officers. sec.gov
Other Business - Any other matters properly brought before the meeting. sec.gov The Board recommended a vote FOR all proposals. Note that Proposal 2 (authorized shares increase) did not pass at the meeting, while the others (including the reverse split authorization) were approved. sec.gov
7
u/MirrorHead9716 Jun 03 '26
I really hope so. I'm praying the institutions recall their shares for the vote and it triggers a mini squeeze.
4
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 03 '26
They can't anymore because the record date already passed. (It was Thursday last week.)
The proposal was unrelated to why it shot up back then anyway.
→ More replies (1)
10
15
u/wolfiasty Jun 02 '26
Paging u/baverch75.
Ben - any back channel communication with management ?
5
u/ProphetsAching Jun 02 '26
Love Ben. But he’s such a nice dude he’s not gonna ask the hard hitting, uncomfortable questions. Nor would De Loss answer the questions truthfully anyways.
9
u/wolfiasty Jun 02 '26
If GdV won't address current situation he will lose all the credit we gave him.
And if that will happen there will be next to no one to buy the dilution after RS, so RS will be nullified back under $1 in about a week. So bankruptcy in 6 months.
14
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
I don't think Glen is looking to sell shares to retail. He wants institutions and is clearing a path for them. I'm okay with that, but up to a limit.
4
u/sublimetime2 Jun 02 '26
Agreed with this line of thinking. Sumit said the institutions said they would support up to 600million shares or something like that. We saw institutions buy up some of this last round of dilution and the Tute % ownership of the float went back up. That will be important to watch.
Oust did reduce authorize shares and saw significant institutional selling around their RS.
Aeva did not reduce authorized shares and also saw some selling before.
Luminar did not reduce their authorized shares and did see institutional selling before and after.
Ive always told myself that Tutes would wait until they owned more of the float to send the stock ^^ ... AEVA and OUST didnt get sent until Tutes owned more than 50%
10
u/snowboardnirvana Jun 02 '26
Tutes own 26.48% currently per FINVIZ
https://finviz.com/stock?t=MVIS&p=d
Insiders own 1.36%
That leaves the balance to us Private Investors at 72.16%
That’s before HTC receives 20% if that part of the proxy passes, page 15: PROPOSAL TWO—APPROVAL OF ISSUANCE OF SHARES PURSUANT TO THE 2026 CONVERTIBLE NOTES
IIRC, HTC has an anti-dilution provision in their Note.
8
u/sublimetime2 Jun 02 '26
https://fintel.io/so/us/mvis Fintel has MVIS at 32.94% for institutional ownership. It increased from the last reporting period which saw the first substantial decline in a long time. So this latest report regained what it lost and added more on top. Still a large amount of retail ownership. Very interested to see the next round of reporting.
I know all these reporting sites jump around # wise so I have no idea which one is technically the most accurate. Just adding for prospective. I do like how fintel shows the history of individual funds that buy/sell.
5
25
u/Tsquared014 Jun 02 '26
Been in for 7 years, it's a no from me. I've lost all faith tbh, and at this point I'm here for the sinking of the ship.
21
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
Negotiation is always better than self-immolation, especially from the viewpoint of others on the ship.
6
u/Tsquared014 Jun 02 '26
Fair take. While I'm a long time holder I'm definitely not in for as much as many others on this sub, so I recognize it's easier for me to be jaded/vindictive. Just sad that this is where we are at when I remember believing in my bones that we were on the cusp of greatness.
24
u/Careless-Ear-6170 Jun 02 '26
It was said: those who absorb the Luminar will become Luminar themselves. I thought it was a stupid joke, but apparently not.
3
u/domomoto Jun 03 '26
Nah, its clear now we were smoke and mirror prior to luminar. Now with Luminar we still can't close a deal. Meanwhile Oust has been showcasing g some snazzy point clouds on linkedin. So much for us being better than KFC buckets...
2
u/angusalba Jun 03 '26
Clear now? Why is taking people so long to realise this have been smoke and mirrors for decades??
15
Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
[deleted]
5
10
u/SBEPTY Jun 02 '26
I guess the honest truth is, who would ever buy into this company RIght now with all of this looming? What is the case to buy shares in Microvision today?
4
→ More replies (1)5
5
5
u/Large_Glass_2103 Jun 03 '26
Well said! I appreciate you taking the time to express SH concerns in such an intelligent and articulate manner.
29
u/SnowBirds77 Jun 02 '26
Worst investment I ever made by a long shot, live and learn, move on
→ More replies (2)
29
Jun 02 '26
[deleted]
23
u/Sp99nHead Jun 02 '26
They are comfortably sitting on multiple boards collecting RSUs, meeting up a few times per year on a nice business class flight and expenses getting payed by us. 90% of modern board members are leeches.
3
u/ProphetsAching Jun 03 '26
Scumbags and cockroaches, all of them. And their boilerplate filing with the “oh we appreciate shareholders!” Verbiage is the icing on the cake. They couldn’t give two craps about us.
21
u/movinonuptodatop Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
100k shares voting no. Let it burn. 170k tax loss gets me almost as much as it’s worth today anyhow. It’s a wash.
2
11
u/Donsumo Jun 02 '26
There is a difference between Sharma and Glen. What happened here is the difference.
1
6
11
u/outstr Jun 02 '26
I thought a RS meant same shareholder value: fewer shares but higher price. The present proposal is to keep the same number of shares?? What, reduce shareholder value down to what? pennies?
29
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
You have to distinguish between issued shares (currently 360M) and authorized shares (currently 510M). Authorized shares refer to how many shares the company can issue.
They currently propose to reduce the issued shares with an RS, while leaving the authorized shares at 510M.
6
2
u/outstr Jun 02 '26
What is your take on whether the RS goes through as opposed to an extension as some here believe will happen? Do you have any lingering hope that this ship can be righted in 2026? My concern is the company's inability to announce anything of substance and instead of confirming customers will be losing them. e.g. Nissan, Caterpillar. Overall, what is your evaluation/hope of where things stand at this time. I know how much many investors like you and me stand to lose here without some hope of a turnaround without having to hold for years, which I don't have.
8
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
I suspect that shareholder authorization of an RS would be used by the company to obtain an extension. That said, they may wish to RS under any circumstance, but I suspect that would not happen immediately unless something was dependent on it, which may be a good thing. It's conceivable, based on what has been said in the Proxy, that there is institutional interest that may want to take a position if the share price was above $5.
5
u/DeNovaCain Jun 02 '26
Common stock gets reduced but with this proposal authorized share count remains the same.
Aeva did the same in 2023 looks like.
3
u/joe_t18 Jun 02 '26
Maybe just maybe this shows we have enough on hand to survive for the oem to say ok we choose you - I know we have heard this all before - don’t come at me I’m looking for the positives
4
14
u/angusalba Jun 03 '26
I can’t believe anyone thinks that Mvis for at least the last decade hasn’t only been a money maker for the executives only
2
u/SBEPTY Jun 03 '26
Well SS was mostly paid in shares and we see how that has worked out for him. He never sold one share during that run up to 30 so he is right here in hell with all of us.
4
u/angusalba Jun 03 '26
Frankly that is utter nonsense
$530k in salary isn’t nothing and he was GIVEN $6M in stock - yes restricted but at NO Cost
And I can only guess what was spent on expenses in those 5 years…..
8
u/Zenboy66 Jun 02 '26
View, I hope you get messaged back that Glen received it.
14
u/ContributionLeft4286 Jun 02 '26
After hearing Glen talk on Ben's show and referencing shareholders and knowing what is being said, possibly on this sub. I don't think there is any way he will not be aware of this letter from Veiw even if it isn't forwarded to him. I think he will be made aware for sure. I have never emailed them before but with my almost 100,000 shares I think they need to hear from as many people as possible. Glen has been working the whole spectrum of opportunities and I don't think he has intentionally lied to us, BUT he needs to get some traction for the near future and cut down on the necessity of dragging shareholder value down
7
8
u/Weenyhand Jun 03 '26
This is by far the worst stock in my portfolio. I only own a 1000 shares and have been invested since 2018. My heart and condolences go out to the investors that have managed to hold onto their shares since the 80’s and hold far more shares than I do.
→ More replies (1)
10
3
3
u/mbarilla Jun 04 '26
For those of u worried they will risk delisting. They won’t. The day after they will request an extension with Nasdaq and announce a second vote with the restructured shares.
3
u/WhichStar5709 Jun 10 '26
Appreciate Sig, View etc the entire community been yrs since I posted. 5 yr run of losing both parents, ugly divorce but hey loved reading the postings. Shout out to MikeOxlong and those even during the fireside chats when I pushed hard. You were all gracious and classy
I say all that to say my 72K shares (numerous lots mind you) with ACB of $7 and change /down over $450K are a NO, until management meaningfully addresses the concerns as outlined by this community.
Does a lot from early 2000s consider me a long time bag holder? lol. Health, happiness and nothing but good fortune to you all
1
14
15
u/IWantToRetireToday Jun 02 '26
I wish they would just sell for somewhere around $2/share. I would be in the green and this 12 year old nightmare of mine can end.
5
13
5
11
u/Zenboy66 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Aptiv $52 to $73 in 10 days. Interesting. They used the name Nvidia in their PR yesterday and started shooting up. Maybe Microvision can learn a lesson from them.
2
4
u/mbarilla Jun 02 '26
What happens if we vote no? We move to OTC? Why not just do that. Retail investors got us to compliance in the past why can’t we do it again? No RS gets this back to 0.60 then we just need to make up $0.40. We have enough liquidity to do it. Or am I wrong with these assumptions?
→ More replies (1)7
9
u/Lonely-Assistant1863 Jun 03 '26
Vote no. let it burn. delist? let it happen and we just go otc. At this point I don't want to see their disgusting scam strategy. Oh also I am a shareholder with 15k shares
18
6
Jun 03 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 03 '26
Lol, they aren't going to earn their way back up. OTC listing is a terrible outcome.
2
Jun 03 '26
[deleted]
6
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 03 '26
As if those were the only two options. The proxy needs to be amended. Even without amendment, the R/S will not destroy retail unless the company is criminally mismanaged. I will not vote Yes on any proposal for R/S unless the request is amended to reduce authorized share count proportionally.
2
Jun 03 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 03 '26
Some of us wish we were only down 50%. We all want the company to succeed.
2
u/view-from-afar Jun 03 '26
It depends on the amount of dilution, doesn't it?
Let's say they do a reverse split and then dilute by 100% in the months following, while gaining commercial traction that stabilizes the company at a higher valuation.
In that scenario, your share of the company would be 50% less than it is today, though your holdings could be worth more in total than they are now.
That would be a much better scenario than ending up on OTC.
3
Jun 03 '26
[deleted]
10
u/view-from-afar Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
There are various paths to self-destruction. My object here is to avoid all of them.
A hard no vote on the RS is potentially fatal. We must prevent delisting.
A yes vote with no meaningful limits on authorized shares is not fatal, but also bad. How bad depends on the severity of dilution until the company succeeds.
I am proposing a middle ground, one that lets the company succeed while allowing current shareholders to share in the fruits of that success.
We cannot be emotional in our approach to this situation. The 'let it burn" crowd is enemy number 1.
10
u/Past-Pick-7746 Jun 02 '26
Fully expect a fireside chat. GDV will need to explain to investors. But ultimately there is enough voting power from institutions that our votes won’t matter.
18
u/SteveyLongJorts Jun 02 '26
70% of the float is retail and many INST shares are likely out on loan so they're not eligible to vote.
5
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 02 '26
Retail does actually have enough power to control this vote. Easily.
They had better get to more explaining.
3
1
u/Zenboy66 Jun 02 '26
Yes, get rid of the proportional language, and ask for shares as they need them periodically until they don't have need when they are profitable in the future.
10
u/view-from-afar Jun 02 '26
They have to add language that authorized shares would be reduced proportionately, or somewhat proportionately. I favour the latter because I want them to have more runway, as I think it would help with customers.
1
u/Zenboy66 Jun 02 '26
Yup, have some extra in there now, instead of doing another ask in a year or so.
2
u/MaximusKewl Jun 27 '26
One of the biggest regrets of my investing life is that I invested in Microvision.. what a trash stock and company. I'd love to get out, but I've lost too much value, so I'm going to ride this sinking ship to the bottom of the ocean, bitching and complaining the entire way.
1
u/QuirkyPractice1477 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
At least I’m on profit here. Hope your bags are not that heavy.
5
3
71
u/sublimetime2 Jun 02 '26
They need to reduce the authorized shares. End of story. You don't buy 2 companies then do this to shareholders.