Good points Cattdogg. When I bring up the issue, I am not trying to bash but really think the CEO's treatment of management compensation and dilution should be rationally questioned. Here we are three years after DO took the helm and referenced to shareholders in conversation "$50 stock price in two years" and the stock is currently below both the average price long-term shareholders came in under Tom Moore and under the average share price of around $12 that DO's investors have come in by way of all the offerings. Some of the things DO has done have arguably been blatantly and unethically damaging to shareholder interest (e.g., the 40% discounted secondary offering to push through and unprecedented increase in non-performance based bonus compensation) while others have weighed on the stock over time (e.g., ongoing dilution coupled with weak deals, such as the Knight Canada deal). While I'm very encouraged by the progress the company has made, it's disappointing that the stock price has not reflected shareholder value added, while management's ownership has increased. When management has shown it places a higher priority on siphoning shareholder assets to its own financial gain over generated a return on shareholders assets, it begs the if the scenario presented itself would we better better off selling the company outright now for say $30 than waiting to build more value for a higher price later (when in reality that higher market value down the road, if the same pace of dilution continues, could equate to a stock price that is not much higher but the real benefit of the added time is that it gives management more times to issues themselves more bonus shares to ensure the added time is accretive to themselves, not necessarily shareholders).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
