Menander,
It is apparent that you are irrational when speaking of this issue.
Keeping your best interests at heart, let's make a deal: you refrain from calling me irrational and I will refrain from calling you simple-minded and gullible.
The "core issues" you reference are not that of the long-term investor who expects a healthy return on investment based on a fundamental growth in earnings over time.
The evidence points to a corrupt conspiracy of the existence of a perpetual option-granting machine manipulated by only two Board Members.
This is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is a transaction log of executives who have liquiditaed some of their holdings.
"A transaction log of executives who have liquiditaed(sic) some of their holdings." Isn't "almost all of their holdings" much more accurate? And why do they do that so regularly?Duuhhhh! Because they know they will get a lot more from where those came from? Correct, Postyle! Go to the head of the class. Anyone, my dear Postyle, who has ever received options knows thay cannot , unless the game is rigged, be sure of what they may be granted the following year. This is because awards are based on personal performance and other issues. If they were the least bit unsure and also believed the share price would increase many-fold in a couple of years, guess what, Postyle? Duuhhhh. They wouldn't sell? Correct, Postyle. Back to the head.....of the class. So those who are not in your catechumen category are naturally perplexed by this behavior. I hope you take the time to understand this simple message as an important element of your much-needed education in Exec Comp and management in general.
As for my "attempt to off-handly dismiss the core issues" -- I really don't know how to respond to that.
Knowing more about you now, I was foolish to expect a response.
Your issues are based on emotion and an abecedarian appreciation for the complexities of executive compensation. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make when you say...
You seem in need of a second deal: if you don't call me emotional and an abecedarian I won't call you a nescient catechumen.
"Many members of this board own more shares than do management menbers [sic]"
When all but one executive own far fewer shares than a good number of average shareholders on this board, then something is wrong. I hope you get this one, I know it is tough to understand. And, please...please don't tell me that options are a form of ownership. That would only further identify you as a catechumen.
I have been quite clear on this board (and the former club board on Raging Bull) that there is a distinct difference between being opposed to excessive compensation and being opposed to the selling of insider holdings.
Please take the time to differentiate between the two, and then you might be able to follow my reasoning.
I already understand the superficial difference, thanks. BTW, I am amused by your patronizing and pretentious airs.
Warm regards,
I reciprocate, of course, your obviously sarcastic warm regards.
postyle
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
