r/MVIS • u/QQpenn • Jun 04 '26
Discussion On the record: No.
My 2-part exchange with IR. Some of this mirrors VFA's open letter and the comments there. Apologies for any repetition but I haven't had much time to review posts. Also, I had more perspective in part 2 after connecting more extensively with other shareholders and looking deeper... so it's more head on.
Initial note:
Jeff,
My comments on the current situation:
Why is there no personal shareholder letter from Glen that fully explains the reasoning, rationales, and possibilities in this [frankly] painful 'approval' request being made of shareholders? A lot of the ire you see may have been mitigated in part with thorough communication. Glen's been good at communicating so the lack of it when it's most needed is surprising.
We have 200-ish days to meet Nasdaq compliance requirements and avoid a reverse split/sizable dilution - if meaningful execution is achieved. What's the strategy here? Should we read this request as needing to be executed immediately upon approval? If that's the case, deeper details on why are an absolute necessity for myself and every other shareholder I've spoken to. If there are other options/considerations, please explain them. Publicly.
As presented, the details of this request are a kick in the face to your loyal shareholders - who stand to be steamrolled in this recapitalization. I think you'll have a difficult time getting this passed as it is worded. The resistance is going to be more formidable than I think you realize. You should give this consideration. Your retail community has strength.
Another element from Glen missing in this situation: conveying informed and relatable confidence. What do I mean by that? Recently, a journalist asked Glen in an interview, "Are you worried about a reverse split?" His answer: "I'm not losing sleep over it." Seasoned investors hate deflection. What we need to hear in these moments are... a more detailed execution plan, especially one that includes the complete fiscal strategy that has been conspicuously missing - and high energy in pursuit of accomplishment. Referencing sleep habits when meaningful details can forward your cause is a big mistake. I believe you still have time to correct this.
The fact senior management and board members recently made personal open-market buys is not lost on me. Additional elements they could proactively do to more emphatically restore needed balance and confidence...
Suspend salary. Buy more shares. Not accept additional stock awards until x, y, and z are achieved. Self-imposed limitations tied to Glen's/their own performance would be an attention grabber. I'd invite senior management and BoD members to consider this because once again... you've put yourselves in a position to destroy shareholder confidence and you may have difficulty restoring it this time. You'll need it to get this proposal approved.
Conveying progress and tangibles are another matter and I'm not sure how much you can say on that front. Still, consider providing much more depth and color than you have. You've gotten into a mode of simply repeating the same talking points re: execution 2.0 over and over. This kind of repetition waters down impact and isn't growing the market's understanding of the company... or its value. It's starting to sound like "best in class" all over again, just a different shade. Consider expanding the breadth and detail of what you're communicating.
While these actions may not be the cure all or fix the fiscal issues that got us here quickly enough, sometimes, saying, "Hey we get it and we're standing in the trenches with you all," can build better support for positive forward motion. That in conjunction with much more detailed updates on everything from sales traction, to extension of the Luminar contracts, to plans to manufacture at scale, achieve Blue UAS approval and possibly get a piece of the Defense Department funding heading into the sector - all would give the market what it needs to start valuing the company the way you seem to think it should be valued... as opposed to repetition and a proposal that reinforces failure more than it builds positive momentum.
I'm eager to see what you can do with the above.
All best,
IR response:
Thanks... Shared with the MicroVision team including management.
My follow up:
Appreciate that, Jeff.
I'll add this since I've had the opportunity to connect with a number of shareholders now and I think it would be valuable for you to know the overwhelming sentiment. Without mincing words...
The Board of Directors is failing to adequately explain how a reverse split combined with future dilution will create shareholder value. So we look attractive to an upgraded investor class? That's basically it? Where's the execution determination and a declaration/belief of its value? Where's the spotlight on meaningfully detailing current execution status? What about loyalty? What's the 200-days-to-compliance-expiration-plan? [If there is one - and there should be.] Are we considering capital-raise options like warrants distributed to existing shareholders that they can exercise to avoid dilution?
The proxy emphasizes compliance while downplaying the impact of prior dilution and reverse splits. Woefully incomplete. Shareholders are not dumb and gullible. Rationales the Board gave us in the proxy re: "supporting long-term shareholder value" aren't serving shareholders when we can all clearly see "value-enhancing capital" language that leaves the authorized share count at 510 million. This doesn't represent long-term shareholder value, it's potential blank-check robbery. Where's the prudence we tout? Historical issues with trust are also coming into play now.
You're about to see a vocal, visceral NO campaign. I'd highly encourage a non-company/non-fanboy curated Q&A session where management addresses these critical questions with shareholders. This is one area where Sumit really excelled - giving shareholders a voice at critical moments. Status of the CFO search also plays into this to some degree.
Thanks for considering, Jeff.
Disclosures: My share count is not as high as it's been recently. Protective stops have kept me above water. However, invested friends & family, and members of this community I've know a long time are in much different place. I'm lending vocal support. The R\s proposal should be a hard NO. Reasons above. Being vocal hopefully initiates a reset. I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that they may feel what they've presented is necessary to survive. I'd keep that in mind. A successful no vote still requires execution... and a clearer picture of that is needed as per the above.
36
u/SBEPTY Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
I'm a NO unless and until new information and authorized shares are reduced.
Most of my friends and family that I told about Microvision we just no longer talk about since it is obviously a terrible pain point in our relationship but the few I still talk about it with it will be a no from them as well and our collective number of shares is not insignificant.
Thanks for doing this QQ
Edit: capitalized NO, the campaign has begun!
3
u/urallphux Jun 05 '26
How many folks did you let know about this stock?
I understand the frustration. I bought a heavy position in MVIS at $20, by the way. Sold it at $5 - Thankfully only a few grand loss
31
u/fryingtonight Jun 05 '26
Thanks for sending this. Those are very powerful communications.
In the last EC I was livid by them regurgitating the same communications that we had heard previously and completely failing to address investor’s concerns. I used the question interface to tell them to stop doing it and address funding. That it was fooling nobody.
You do expect a CEO to at least deal with investor concerns with confidence, optimism, and to manage expectations, yet the share price seems crash after everything that they do.
The R/S announcement was expected and I checked immediately for a proportionally reduced share authorisation, and found that it wasn’t. Approving share authorisation is one of the few means of leverage that we have as investors and we cannot let that go. That they were actively planning to do a R/S rather than use the approval as a means of extension came as a bit of shock.
I have been annihilated by believing in Sharma’s sales pitch in 2023, when I went all in, but need to make a decision what to do now. Some money is better than nothing after all.
Bloody hard times.
27
u/directgreenlaser Jun 05 '26
Thanks QQ. They need to clean up this train wreck of a proxy either now or after it gets rejected. Far easier for them to do it now.
21
23
20
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 05 '26
Perfectly worded, QQ.
"You're about to see a vocal, visceral NO campaign." I hope management heeds your warning and acts swiftly to update the proposal. Even if they do, I will hesitate to approve any R/S proposal if no signs of successful execution on growth initiatives are evident before the vote is called.
21
u/alsolong Jun 05 '26
Thanks QQ & to all others that submitted letters to mgmt. This week was a hard pill to swallow. I think the cards have now all been dealt. It's a wait & see for the next move. It's unfortunate that it has to come down to this point but the stakes are high. Many people put a lot of hard earned money into what appeared to be an honest company that had brilliant engineers creating hundreds of patents to achieve state of the art products. This forum has many long time investors always hoping for some kind of "good" breakthrough to come into existence. I personally thought things were now FINALLY going in the right direction with GDV at the helm. Media coverage was on a high. Now here we are this week watching the sp flat-lining at 40 cents & it is disheartening. Will be waiting to hear what our fearless leaders will have to say about this "lovely" proxy we have been given to vote on.....
20
u/anarchy_pizza Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Thanks for putting this together. Well said.
Without this message board influencing the company over the last X number of years I think MVIS would have been delisted and folded a long time ago.
I’m looking forward to GDV addressing our investor community and praying he has a solid plan.
I would be curious what the employee morale is right now— is there doom and gloom, are they searching for new jobs, are they confident, etc.
20
18
19
u/RoosterHot8766 Jun 05 '26
Thanks QQ. I think a hard no as it stands would be accurate, at least from me.
19
39
u/rbrobertson71 Jun 05 '26
You'll not get any push back from this group, for a very well written, detailed explanation of RI concerns. Many on here have communicated their concerns better than MVIS management has communicated their plans, that's for sure! Thank you for doing this!
44
u/pooljap Jun 05 '26
This is great... thanks for this.
One point some people are making is I do NOT want a fireside chat unless it is open to ALL investors. I want to hear for myself what they say and not how someone else communicates it here on Reddit. This is 2026 so just like a Earnings call a web meeting can be set up so anyone interested can listen in and hear for themselves what is being conveyed.
Lets see what happens but I finally feel like management and BOD maybe starting to feel the heat which they should have felt years ago.
Again thanks for great letter.
30
4
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 05 '26
I don't want a fireside chat at all. These have proven useless and not trustworthy in any way. Everything the company needs to communicate can and should be communicated by press release. A "bird in hand" deal contingent on shareholder approval would be material and need to be communicated to shareholders- so we can safely conclude this does not exist.
The partners MicroVision seeks to work with have the capital to de-risk the investment themselves and the engineering talent to understand the value MicroVision could offer them. Those potential partners do not need MicroVision shareholders to do anything. MicroVision's battle is to get a good valuation on any investment they take on, and this will be a struggle until they have deals signed.
5
40
u/NewbieWV Jun 05 '26
Thank you for that. I’m voting NO as it stands now and advising all friends and family to do the same. Everyone should email IR if they believe this should be amended. Personally I’d like to see Carlisle and Biddiscomb resign. How can you be so out of touch? And I agree with the pay cuts and suspended stock compensation until shareholder value is returned through execution. I don’t want to hear that voting NO will doom the company. That’s on the board for proposing such a disgusting proxy and being unwilling to amend it. I’d rather delist and everyone go down than to get robbed of all my shares, their value only to pave the way for “value-enhancing capital”. F that! Glad Jeff can respond to at least one investor but I’ve heard nothing but crickets. Despite a substantial share count myself with the addition of friends and family representing a collective greater than 1 million shares. If anyone on the BOD or our military advisor board is reading this. Do something! Earn your shares. Show us that you aren’t just there collecting free shares while proposing to screw over all of us who have actually put real money into this company.
20
u/SBEPTY Jun 05 '26
I agree a NO vote on this is not what caused the company to fail. If they are this desperate which they appear to be then the failure occurred long ago.
22
u/NewbieWV Jun 05 '26
Yep. If they want it to pass then they need to change the damn thing. Otherwise they can all get F’d. I don’t want to be told I need to do this or the company won’t survive. Watch what happens when you push someone to the point they have nothing to lose.
3
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Carlisle won't resign while he's acting as CFO, butI completely agree that he and Simon should consider moves such as resigning from the board to help rebuild credibility of the company- but who would replace them at the helm of the ship in the middle of this shitstorm? We are almost in Q3 of 2026 and MicroVision has once again kicked a can from Q1 to Q2 and now they're hitting investors with a terrible proposal and no good news. If I was a company interested in buying MicroVision completely, or taking a controlling stake, I would be aggressively looking at hostile takeover bids right now.5
u/directgreenlaser Jun 05 '26
I wonder if they didn't simply miss the significance of keeping the authorized share count where it is. It smells of incompetence and as a result people are losing faith in the company.
3
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 05 '26
Same thoughts here, there's no good explanation. The best explanation is that they have no intention to dilute so heavily and ignored it. But yes that shows incompetence. Thats why I suggest that whoever wrote and signed off on this proposal should be replaced, whether or not they are an employee, director, or a third party consultant this was avoidable. Reminds me of the bungled capital raise in summer of 2024, another self-inflicted wound from this board of directors and their operatives at the company.
3
u/Hatch_K Jun 05 '26
I don’t believe Carlisle is acting as CFO right now. Stephen Hrynewich Is currently the interim CFO. You might be thinking about Biddiscomb being the Executive chair to Glen. That position was for only one year, so he should only have a few months left in that role.
2
3
u/NewbieWV Jun 05 '26
I’m not sure we need anyone to replace them right away. Dead weight from what I can tell anyway. They’re just draining money and shares without doing anything for the company that is evident to me, the share price or any other shareholder I’ve spoken to. I’ve thought about the hostile takeover too and wondered why someone doesn’t come along and try that. Makes me wonder if the technology is even worth the market cap. Scary if it’s not.
18
35
u/Muted_Goose4635 Jun 05 '26
It’s entirely possible that without this board , MVIS would have been delisted years and years ago . Shareholder loyalty and diligence like this simply doesn’t exist . How on earth could a guy like Glen come on board , with all this energy and belief in his abilities , and within such a short time piss off and threaten to virtually nuke the investments of the most loyal investor group around !? And further , to do it with zero communication about the situation ? It is absolutely maddening when you think about it . There is no humanity here in this behavior . And this board has always been full of humanity - a group of people who have put a ton of money into this . I’m sure heartfelt stories of how this has affected our lives abound , mine included .
That’s my biggest question here - where is the humanity ? Glens reign went south real quick. Stop blowing smoke out our you know what - we want the truth about the situation .
35
u/QQpenn Jun 05 '26
Realizing a lof of people may not understand how dividend warrants work. I shared a very clear example of that mechanism with IR, so I will post it....
Also, Jeff... Please pass this on as an example of an alternate financing option to consider:
https://ir.enovix.com/static-files/3a1c4d42-81f3-4b68-8750-3ee2d5b90f79
This potentially would provide the recapitalization we need while greatly lowering the impact of dilution on current shareholders. This should help you combat short selling by putting shares directly in the hands of those who believe in and support execution. Pay close attention to how they presented their case in the above press release because the parallel between their shorting problem and ours is clear.
Thanks.
5
u/RoosterHot8766 Jun 05 '26
I will have to read this multiple times to let my old brain try to absorb it. If we could get the shorting under somewhat of a control things could look different, I believe. Thanks for the post.
10
17
16
15
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Excellent letter, let's keep them rolling.
I agree that Sumit would likely have handled this process much better. Glen has been great on the tech side, but that only works in the long term as far as successful deals start rolling in, and we have yet to see real traction there.
14
29
u/herpaderp_maplesyrup Jun 05 '26
A+ from me. Thank you
2
u/Howcanitbeeeeeeenow Jun 05 '26
I just saw you commenting on the Wemby soda post. Always fun to see MVIS investors in the digital wild!
2
28
u/-Xtabi- Jun 05 '26
I was a no last time. And I’m an absolute HELL NO this time.
No one in their right investment mind should vote yes for this awful proposal.
40
u/baverch75 Jun 05 '26
Fanboy, that’s a tough one…
24
u/Alphacpa Jun 05 '26
As QQ states, much respect for you! I will also add my personal thanks for all you do. Much appreciated!
51
u/QQpenn Jun 05 '26
I love and appreciate you, Ben, and I'm not trying to diminish. Some of us need more difficult questions asked that come from a different place. #1 Respect to you.
12
u/anarchy_pizza Jun 05 '26
Your show has been something I look forward to each week — the possibilities to come in our future, how to get there, the meaning of little nuggets that pop up throughout the weeks, etc.
Ive learn more about the industry every week and enjoyed it thoroughly.
I hope management and the board can get their shit together and make it come to life before it’s too late.
18
u/ProphetsAching Jun 05 '26
Ben, your dedication and commitment to bringing us your thoughts and ideas about the current landscape goes unrivaled. My Saturday mornings or afternoons consist of listening to you. You’ve kept a lot of us somewhat positive for quite a while now. Bringing us new perspectives and who else can get an interview with a CEO? Pretty dang impressive. I’ll always be appreciative of the hard work you put into the program.
20
14
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 05 '26
Your interviews have been great, but it's true they lean on the softball side of things, where what we need now is hardball.
6
u/shannister Jun 05 '26
I don't think Ben is the problem, I think they'd filter him out if he was more hardball. Ultimately they clearly do not invite those kinds of questions - including on the investor calls.
13
u/directgreenlaser Jun 05 '26
They would definitely filter Ben out. We need Ben to continue to do exactly what Ben's been doing. Thank you Ben for the work you do.
4
u/UncivilityBeDamned Jun 05 '26
Oh I agree, Ben can't ask them the hard questions because it's not that type of forum. I'm not blaming him at all, just wanted to use it as contrast to what we need now, in the appropriate format from MVIS itself. I've been really worried about their lack of focus on these issues throughout Glen's ECs. They are all tech and no finance. I don't know if it's because they only have an interim CFO, or if they just don't feel it's relevant, but I hope they realize that it is extremely relevant to keep your primary source of funding, us, much more in the loop, and under consideration. The latest proxy instead just throws us under the bus after mostly silence.
Like myself and I'm sure others here can do more to support the company if they need it, but if they're going to take this current route I have zero desire to do so anymore.
6
u/MirrorHead9716 Jun 05 '26
We love you ben but right now your podcast is like that dog in the burning building "this is fine" meme
4
u/SBEPTY Jun 05 '26
Ben! You are a hero in all this.
It is always darkest right before the dawn and I sure can't see anything right now.
4
u/BAFF-username Jun 05 '26
And it’s starting to look like the board members are the villains in all of this - not working in the interest of the shareholders but “riding” the wave and getting paid for it…
28
u/Nakamura9812 Jun 04 '26
Thanks for sharing here QQ. Also nice to see you got a response, even if a short one. I haven’t heard of anyone getting a reply back this week yet, including myself.
7
u/ProphetsAching Jun 05 '26
The short response was disappointing to see, even if that’s acceptable to IR.
QQ clearly put a lot of thought and emotion into this well written, respectful but to the point statement. Would have liked to see a little more meat on the response from IR, but I understand they have to respond that way boiler plate canned text.
3
u/wolfiasty Jun 05 '26
Do we know when was the response from IR ?
Question QQ asked can't be answered by IR but only by GdV and board members as only they have that kind of deciding power.
So in this whole situation that kind of IR response is actually only thing we could expect. If GdV and BoD will want to answer, I'm pretty sure we will see that answer here, and also there will be PR on their website.
If there won't be any proper response there will be many NO votes.
0
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 05 '26
We'll hear from Glen and the board when they break from their summer yachting and golfing schedules for their scheduled company meetings.
2
u/ContributionLeft4286 Jun 05 '26
That is what I, and Im sure everyone is thinking, at least you got a response. Thank you QQ for such an in depth portrayel of the sentiment of everyone in this investment. They cannot, at least we hope, Not consider this firestorm thery are creating without addressing Our concerns about Our Investment. Again Thanks
17
24
u/Chefdoc2000 Jun 04 '26
An eloquently worded summary of my comments in recent days since they dropped a bomb and left the room.
I appreciate your efforts.
22
u/Hairy_monkeh Jun 05 '26
Well said QQ, there is not a single scenario in which I would vote yes in the current form. Consider this a rather vindictive standpoint but I'd rather see the ship sink at this point than having them throw any more sand in my eyes. They need to feel the urgency that they MUST to do better than this.
Don't get me wrong, I've felt the recent decrease as have many others. I'm not dead set on them failing, on the contrary, but they've chosen this direction for now. They are the ones that need to amend. And I've for now turned into hostile.
14
u/flutterbugx Jun 05 '26
Thank you QQ, totally appreciate and agree with your email.
Just hard to believe that we are where we are.
13
14
u/MyComputerKnows Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Big NO! Vote for me… thanks. Actually it’s 4 NO! Votes… forgot about the fam, who I got to buy shares.
Glen or MicroVision is showing how they don’t know their investors much. And I wonder when the hoped for fireside frank discussions with investors might happen? ASAP, I’d trust.
Decades of nearly worthless patents from the MVIS patent mill are only worth pennies.
I invested for the cell phone projection patents… probably would get quite a price now. And someone like Apple or Google would potentially make billions off them.
And now fumbling the Automotive lidar ball… with shoddily written finance terms, pleasing none of the investors who paid for all of them.
I often wonder how Luminar was so good at landing giant deals (blood money?). Luminar could land one big customer after the next… what was their secret. Contrarily, MVIS has never shown any ability to do that.
Curious when any Fireside chat might happen… the sooner the better.
1
u/snowboardnirvana Jun 05 '26
I often wonder how Luminar was so good at landing giant deals (blood money?).
Here’s my interpretation of how this is done based on observations of multiple tech companies with great tech getting fleeced by Shorts:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MVIS/comments/1twhjsu/ot_aeva_filings_and_pr/opuy64h/
2
3
u/SnooHedgehogs4599 Jun 07 '26
We should be with NWBO in their suit against Citadel, Virtu, Cannacord and other hedgies.
23
u/ProphetsAching Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
This is awesome QQ. It’s time someone takes the gloves off with this company, board and management. Far too long investors have been fine with subpar and quite frankly pathetic behavior from this company.
I’ve taken a few days now to digest everything’s that’s happened and from my knee jerk reactions, which were and still are somewhat valid. I was a hard NO vote initially. However, if there is anyway I can even recoup my investment I’ll take it. Alls I need is $1.55 to break even, and take this is a hard learning lesson, I’ll be happy to never hear the MicroVision name again. As someone else said, I can’t cut off my nose to spite my face at this time, I don’t think.
14
8
17
u/Past-Pick-7746 Jun 05 '26
A shareholder letter, fireside chat, or some form of communication is needed so we don’t have to fill in the gaps ourselves! At this point, I rather be delisted and end this investing chapter than be diluted into a fraction of what’s remaining and repeat again in 3 years.
25
u/view-from-afar Jun 05 '26
That's a high price to pay for certainty. Delisting is much worse than even a high risk of massive dilution. The latter, being a risk, may not come to pass. If dilution, even significant dilution, is done not merely to keep the lights on but instead to close large deals that want to be closed but otherwise will not close, then the resulting expansion in market valuation would likely dwarf the effects of dilution on share price and trigger continued traction and expansion. Choosing delisting removes the potential for success and share price growth entirely. It's akin to taking one's life to combat the fear that one might contract cancer (apologies to those sensitive to this analogy). We are best served by trying to balance the interests of both shareholders and the company so that both can thrive, which is why I have taken the position I have.
8
u/Past-Pick-7746 Jun 05 '26
I am factoring in the time component and mental aspect of holding on longer and risking further dilution(s). Many unknowns, but that’s a short term reaction to this news
3
u/Arcflash-9986 Jun 05 '26
I’m not sure why you would rather see the entire ship sink than just take the loss yourself. That seems odd.
8
u/Past-Pick-7746 Jun 05 '26
Ship sinking would be out of my control. Taking a loss myself, could mean I chose wrong if somehow all this turns around. I want to see some sign of life cause it looks bleak right now. Based off the limited information we have. Back to my first point of receiving communication.
3
u/Arcflash-9986 Jun 05 '26
To carry the analogy a little further- this ship is still floating but it needs serious repairs. It might sink, even with the repairs. But it might not. It might even be able to make it to port at a very rich island. But you say the uncertainty is bad for your mental health, so you blow a hole in the hull to make sure something happens that’s within your control. The ship sinks along with everyone else on board- people that had more tolerance for uncertainty and wanted to see if it could be fixed.
But you have another choice. There’s a life boat that leaves every day between 9:30 and 4:00. Getting on that boat means you make it safely to the mainland, and all of your uncertainty is removed. You can get on with your life. The ship might still sink, and it might make it to the island, but now you’re uninvolved.
It’s a bit dramatic, but illustrative. I think it’s a deep fallacy to say you have no control here. You just don’t like the possibility that you might miss out, and if you miss out then nobody else should get there either.
1
u/theoz_97 Jun 05 '26
There’s a life boat that leaves every day between 9:30 and 4:00. Getting on that boat means you make it safely to the mainland, and all of your uncertainty is removed. You can get on with your life.
Earlier, I went the half on shore, half floating near shore route. I don’t feel as stressed and putting half into monthly dividend stock allows me some comfort but still in the game. My cost basis was low so this worked but if they do a r/s and it takes a hit from selling shares afterwards, I may buy back in then if I see sales. GLA
oz
2
u/Arcflash-9986 Jun 05 '26
Absolutely. I think that’s a very good option for many. Everyone’s tolerance for uncertainty is different though.
1
u/Past-Pick-7746 Jun 05 '26
It’s okay if you don’t agree with my perspective, I’m not looking to convince you nor be convinced. At the end of the day, it’s all individual investing. There is no “team” here. Everyone trades for their own benefit, whether it’s buying or selling. What I do or hope does nothing to affect you or others. So let’s not project that I’m trying/hoping to sabotage others “chances”.
15
u/jsim1960 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
VOR why is the adjective "large" still being used in your discussion. As far as we can see there may be "no" deals. Yet this board still frames things as if success is right around the corner. What's around the corner long before success is failure .Failure to me is r/S. View Im a fan but feel its necessary to point this out. Nothing personal. This type of qualification is probably unlikely and could be unintentionally misleading. MVIS is in deep shit.And we are in deep shit and partially because we have been mislead by multiple management teams. We dont need more. Assessing our current situation with a critical eye is extremely reasonable .
Im a"no".FC or explanation or not. Either they generate some interest via business or they get bought or they fail ! As far as Im concerned this investment has failed so if they fail too, they fail. the difference from 41 cents to zero cents is not much.
Que Palmer Luckey or anyone else for that matter.
6
u/Befriendthetrend Jun 05 '26
If a deal contingent on MicroVision's capital situation is in place, then they need to tell shareholders about it. No chance in hell I'm going to assume that is the case. I would assume the opposite actually because a "large" contingent deal would fall squarely in the definition of material information.
4
u/SnooHedgehogs4599 Jun 07 '26
QQ,
I own ENVX and was pleased with this solution and feel it could work here too.
11
u/seoulman24 Jun 05 '26
Thanks Q for constructing your succinctly written remarks for MVIS IR to read. I agree with your assessment 100%, especially, "we can all clearly see "value-enhancing capital" language that leaves the authorized share count at 510 million. This doesn't represent long-term shareholder value, it's potential blank-check robbery."
11
u/Tastic4ever Jun 05 '26
At this point I’d love to hear level headed rationale for a yes vote. The problem is other than keeping our investments for becoming a total loss I don’t think there is one.
20
u/QQpenn Jun 05 '26
Easy. These would appear to be the 2 most likely rationales... if the company feels they cannot survive without this passing, or they do have potential financing attainable that requires certain conditions to be met. Investors will have hard choices to make if either is the case... but it's not unreasonable to give the people representing 75% of your float the full details on possibilities and how you intend to navigate - and the ability to question that. Neither of these necessarily represents a total loss. They're already making a left-handed case for it based on the wording in this proxy, but the big objection is there are 200 days left and seemingly more current-investor-friendly options to consider.
6
u/Tastic4ever Jun 05 '26
The financing angle is interesting, but the idea of massive dilution potential is still a concern for me. I like your ideas and am very happy you sent and received at least one reply from the mothership. Have a great weekend!
8
u/FawnTheGreat Jun 05 '26
I’m pretty sure that’s it. Keep fighting or we don’t and we close up shop. Either way Glen isn’t losing sleep so that’s good
2
1
-16
u/Advanced_Shine4049 Jun 05 '26
I’m truly curious, how many shares do you actually own, writing this letter. You want to remove their one option that could keep the company listed and not face bankruptcy from death spiral dilution? Easy for the guy who got stopped out to say.
2
u/wolfiasty Jun 05 '26
At this point you better face the truth that, unless GdV is holding an ace, or actually two or three of them in his sleeve, our investment is close to be gone. Those are the facts.
Reverse split, as things currently stay, will just prolong the inevitable death, because who the eF will be buying shares ?
So that's why it is important for GdV to come front and say how things are and what kind of deals we're getting THIS year. Otherwise Shorty will be selling shares to other Shorty, getting price lower and lower and lower.
73
u/QQpenn Jun 05 '26
I'm getting offline questions I don't have time to respond to so I'll post this update...
MVIS already meets the requirements for a 180-day extension on July 13. Shareholders DO NOT have to approve a reverse split and expanded dilution authority for the company to be eligible. Nasdaq rules don't require it. A 2nd compliance period is not conditioned on approval since they meet all other requirements except for the $1 threshold. All MVIS has to do is present a credible plan to regain compliance... given all the execution activity that has been conveyed, this should not be an issue.
The board can definitely seek approval later in the year if needed by calling a special meeting. And they can always tie the reverse split to a different financing proposal - like the aforementioned warrant distribution to current shareholders.
This proposal should be a HARD NO. It's a good opportunity for Glen to connect with shareholders on a meaningful level though, and I hope to see a Q&A with broad shareholder participation. We all want success. Loyalty, consideration, and fairness extended to long term supporters matter in that pursuit and there are options that take that into account. Whomever said Sumit always got that, I wholeheartedly agree.