RE:RE:True indicator
Kuiper wrote: It’s prudent to highlight that Andrew, has demonstrated substantial commitment to the company in recent years, as evident from his noteworthy investments, well-documented in security filings and company announcements. His investment level appears to align harmoniously with his compensation package.
In considering your point on affordability, it’s worth recognizing that living costs have indeed surged, and his salary may be a reflection of that reality. The choice of $500 as a benchmark may be somewhat arbitrary and not reflective of individual financial circumstances.
However, imagine a scenario where the CEO, alongside other insiders, invests significantly higher sums such as $25,000 or $50,000. If, subsequently, material news emerges from the company, it might raise questions about insider trading on privileged information. In this hypothetical situation, it’s plausible that perspectives might shift from criticisms to discussions on the ethics and legality of such actions. The notion of a “good buy” might be viewed differently in such a context.
Absolute bullshiit post. Three CTO's under Andrews direct management. One $40K investment years ago and nothing worth noting in over half a decade. Don't start with the cost of living as it affects everyone in this country or any country at this point. It APPEARS? Love the choice of words, to align with his salary? Please send any documents that support your blatant attempt at misleading people.
Insider ownership is mandatory at some corporations as it aligns people with the company's objectives and not their own personal interests. Holding vary from one year salary to five years depending on the position. Inside ownership is also viewed as a positive which you are very aware of but choose to mislead people with your posts. In this HYPOTHETICAL situation? The people that run the company that are allowed as well traditionally encouraged to buy shares are making a deliberate decision not to purchase shares in they company they are promoting. They above all have information on the company's potential and are fully allowed to trade or hold shares at any time other then blackout dates which is the industry norm. Andrew has over 2 million shares the vast majority which were given to him. How many companies have employee savings plans which are share based and deemed beneficial as it once again keeps interests aligned and keeps shares in the company's interests.
Please explain Andrews substantial commitment to the company as he continues to collect a steady paycheck while investors receive nothing for their investment? As for the noteworthy investments please name 3 that have produced a viable product, created revenue or benefitted the shareholders? Kupier, it's very obvious as to why you are on this board and it isn't to enlighten people with truths. Your above post is filled with everything but facts and truth. The arbitrary $500 is a token which could have been invested years ago but wasn't. That's a fact no matter how you try to lie. If $500 is a financial stumbling block then explain how a ceo of a public company is best suited to run a company if they are financially challenged themselves? After a career as a tech industry executive $500 is too difficult to invest? If that's true then that's a new level of pathetic with no business running anything. These are touted as brilliant tier one industry players and $500 is a stumbling block? Pathetic how you would even post that garbage.
Hey Sam, read the above post from your poster. Please explain how brilliant the team is and how the business acumen is next level. Please tell me again how you became a millionaire with no money down real estate development and a Royal bank trade. Also please explain how a person at an executive levek In the tech industry for decades couldn't scrape together $500 to invest due to rising living costs? This highlights what an idiot you truly are at anything related to business or wealth.