CTO
CTO Realty Growth, Inc.
stock NYSE

The point that RC is making, if you can even call it that, is so incredibly weak that even apes struggle to mindlessly parrot it.
Only a completely out-of-touch billionaire who hasn't had a single real job in his life would think that the average employee, be it a CTO or a janitor, is mainly motivated to do their job well if they make a blood pact with the company's stock ticker.
RC clearly only cares about money, not even as a way to buy things but as a way to show his worth as a human being. *That* is the cancer that's destroying our society.

If anyone is interested by what Claude Opus thinks:
>Anubhav Verma's resignation was announced on November 17, 2025, effective by December 31, 2025. Stephen Hrynewich, VP of Global Finance & Operations, was appointed Interim CFO and principal financial officer effective on the departure date. As of today (May 28, 2026), Hrynewich is still signing the 10-Q as principal financial officer — confirmed by the Q1 2026 filing we read earlier, which lists his certification. So MVIS has been operating without a permanent CFO for **about five months** since the effective handover (Jan 1, 2026), and roughly **six months** since the resignation was announced.
>**Is five-plus months unusual?**
>Yes — moderately so, but the answer depends on what you're benchmarking against. Industry data on CFO searches generally points to median executive-search timelines of three to six months for public-company CFO roles, with the high end (six to nine months) typically involving complications: small market cap, distressed financials, specialized industry, or compensation constraints. So MVIS sitting at six months isn't yet in obviously-troubled territory, but it's at the upper edge of normal. If it stretches to nine or twelve months, that's where the picture turns clearly negative.
>For context: SOX 302/906 certifications require *someone* to sign as principal financial officer, and an internal VP filling that role indefinitely is permitted — there's no regulatory clock forcing a permanent appointment. But governance norms and proxy advisors view extended interim arrangements skeptically, particularly at companies with going-concern risks, active fundraising, or recent M&A. MVIS has all three.
>**Plausible reasons for the delay — ranked from most innocuous to most concerning**
>*The company is in transition and the role has changed.* This is genuinely a defensible explanation. MVIS just acquired Luminar's lidar assets (closed Feb 3, 2026) and Scantinel (Jan 1, 2026), opened a new Orlando facility, started consolidating Redmond operations into Florida, announced a 15% workforce reduction, and is repositioning toward defense and commercial vehicles. The CFO role they're hiring for today isn't the CFO role Verma had — they need someone who can manage acquisition integration, restructuring, and a more complex international operation (Germany via Scantinel, Florida via Luminar, plus existing Washington). Finding that profile takes longer.
>*Candidate pool is thin for distressed small-caps.* Top-tier CFO candidates have many options. A sub-$300M market cap, micro-cap, recently-restructured, pre-revenue-scale lidar company with active dilution, convertible notes overhang, and a year of cash runway is a hard sell. Anyone leaving a stable role for MVIS is taking real career risk. Comp packages would need to be heavy in equity to compete, and the equity itself is the problem — it's near 52-week lows, with continued dilution baked in. This alone can stretch a search well past six months.
>*Strategic optionality.* If management is contemplating further M&A, a major capital raise, or a strategic alternatives process (sale, merger, take-private), bringing in a permanent CFO at this exact moment may not be the priority. Sometimes companies deliberately keep an interim in place during transitional periods because hiring a permanent CFO before a transformational event creates a mismatch — the permanent CFO you'd hire for "small lidar company executing Lidar 2.0" may not be the one you'd want post-deal.
>*Cost preservation.* A permanent CFO is more expensive than an internal interim. Hrynewich at VP-level comp is materially cheaper than a market-rate CFO with sign-on equity and severance protections. With \~$60M annual burn and a year of runway, every line item gets scrutinized. This is a real factor for cash-stretched companies.
>*The less benign possibilities.* These are speculation, not claims — but you asked for possible reasons, so I'll include them. (a) Candidates have done diligence and walked away because of what they found — convertible-note structure, dilution pace, customer concentration. (b) The board wants a CFO with restructuring or distressed-company experience, which is a narrower talent pool. (c) Management instability or governance friction is making the role unattractive. (d) Search firms have been engaged but priorities have shifted with the acquisitions. The boilerplate disclosure that the resignation "was not the result of any disagreement" is standard SEC language and doesn't tell you anything useful either way — it's said for almost every CFO departure.
>**How to read the signal honestly**
>Six months without a permanent CFO at a transformational moment is yellow-flag territory, not red-flag. It would be more concerning if: (a) the company hadn't just done two acquisitions that legitimately complicate the search; (b) Hrynewich had no relevant experience — but his background at Lucid Group and prior auto OEMs is reasonable for a lidar/auto company; (c) there were other senior departures around the same time (there aren't, that I've seen). The pattern that *would* be concerning is "interim CFO, interim CTO, interim general counsel all at once" — that signals leadership exodus. One interim during an acquisition integration is meaningfully less alarming.
>What would change the read: if the company is still on interim CFO at the Q3 2026 earnings call (November), that's nine months and starts to look like a problem. If they announce a permanent CFO in the next quarter or two, the read is "expected delay during acquisition integration." A useful tell will be whether the appointment, when it comes, is someone with restructuring/turnaround pedigree (suggests the board is worried about the next 18 months) or someone with scale-up/growth-CFO pedigree (suggests confidence in the commercial ramp). Those are very different signals.
>For your specific situation — long-term holder thinking about catalysts — the CFO appointment itself is a potential mild catalyst when it comes, particularly if the person has credibility. Markets often react positively to "credible adult in the room" hires at small-cap turnarounds. Conversely, no appointment by Q3 earnings would be a quiet negative signal worth weighing.

What a beautiful, absolute monster of a week for **HubSpot ($HUBS)**, ripping 16% right off its structural floor! 📈
For the last six months, FinTwit and Reddit have been completely dead silent on HubSpot, with everyone crying that "software is dead" and that all corporate budgets were frozen for hardware. But look at the tape now. **The massive software pivot is officially underway** for the second half of 2026.
The setups for this week are completely changing the narrative. Heavyweights like **Palo Alto Networks ($PANW)** (reporting Tuesday) and **CrowdStrike ($CRWD)** (reporting Wednesday) are positioned to prove enterprise platformization is scaling aggressively. Combined with ServiceNow ($NOW) and Oracle ($ORCL) recently gapping up on massive AI backlogs, **the institutional macro rotation back into high-margin enterprise software is moving at full speed.**
HubSpot is sitting perfectly at the center of this vacuum. While retail was ignoring it, the CEO and CTO quietly dropped **over $2.3 million of their personal cash** to buy shares in the open market because they know the **Breeze AI and Anthropic Claude integrations** are about to print money.
Don't let the lack of social media hype fool you—this is **stealth institutional accumulation.** The spring is coiled tightly, and the macro data is giving us a massive green light for a huge second-half run.
What’s your move? Are you holding through the breakout or chasing the hype later?