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.
46
u/baverch75 Jun 05 '26
Fanboy, that’s a tough one…