InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 46
Posts 3467
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 07/21/2003

Re: 24601 post# 9051

Friday, 09/05/2003 1:38:54 PM

Friday, September 05, 2003 1:38:54 PM

Post# of 248942
nits & that

shute - is the exec comp not a sub-part of the overall emp. comp plan? i don't know the answer, but stand by the belief that any comp plan designed in 1994 was designed for a "development stage" corp.

i mentioned Snack's $300 comment (& know full well that you were not predicting that price, just saying it was possible (& as such makes the 1994 plan even more inappropriate IMO)). but a price of $0 is equally "possible" in 5 years (i don't think it's likely, but it's nevertheless possible).

24, the smoky room metaphor assuredly had a "basis in reality" when the Founders' Shares deal was done (& not disclosed for something like six months).

i don't find it unreasonable to be cautious & skeptical based on such prior dealings. i'm willing to give the benefit of some doubt (as i posted it is possible that entirely legit bases exist for this move).

but the prior disclosure argument is brand new (i only recall mentions of the H shares) & the cost-savings contention of doing a 2d proxy in a month is nonsensical.

there may be some other reason for this maneuver & i don't know what that reason is (wish i did).

do you know?

SPIN



Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.