Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

BRALORNE GOLD MINES LTD BPMSF



GREY:BPMSF - Post by User

Post by pickeralon Feb 25, 2014 7:00pm
314 Views
Post# 22250509

Lower option prices (seagold)

Lower option prices (seagold)So here is my take on options which is just my opinion and is open to correction. There is a maximum percentage (usually 10%) of company shares that can be granted as options to mostly insiders and I would think that at this time BPM is at or near the maximum. Options are priced above the market on the date they are issued with the understanding that the insiders have a future return if the price rises. The purpose of issuing options is to encourage management to work in the best interest of the company and for a return on value for all shareholders. I have no problem with that at all. The problem arises when insiders have only options and no shares in the company. If as an insider you have not put in any money for shares in the company then you have no risk in the company, no interest in the value of the company and no sense of responsibility to those who have invested in it. In my opinion, to re-price the options lower to the current trading price is akin to rewarding management for its failure to keep up the value of the company. A perfect example of this is if the options are set at $1.05 and I buy shares at $1.00. I would love management to perform and get the value of the company up. If the stock goes down to $.30 I lose big time. To lower the original option price for insiders to near the $.30 cent range is rewarding them for poor management and I the owner of the company by way of shares lose value in my investment but the insider loses nothing. Now to your point that options are overpriced and does not give incentive to insiders to buy I think is incorrect. If the price of the stock is down to $.30 and is below the value that they think it should be, the insider can always buy shares on the market and get the value of the company up. Insiders who have no shares or investment in the company have a tendency to further dilute the stock by issuing more shares to get more options and eventually render the shareholders’ investment worth less. I have stated in the past and will state it again, shareholders own the company. Insiders who have no shares other than options have no risk invested and are therefore not owners of the company, they just work for the company. That goes for the President of the company as well, he just works for the shareholders who are the true owners. Lowering the price of the options is not in the best interest of the shareholders and I think this is part of the reason why lowering of the options was not approved by the shareholders (owners). JIMHO
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>