RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Possible chinese partner?Someone has a meeting with them slated for end Jan, so maybe they can post an update if the company doesn't communicate by then.
I think they have to fully disclose compensation plans in the their proxy material. It should give all the numbers and at least a cursory explanation on how they were rewarded, why timing was changed, and perhaps a hint of where it puts them competitively in the group they think they compete with for top notch people. Usually they rely on an outside compensation consultant to review all those elements of a comp plan. So you will get an answer, but not for another 5 to 6 months. Given it was beginning of this new fiscal year, you likely won't see anything in this years annual report.
The upside to those rewards being broadly distributed and more meaningful is that you can bet if the share price still sticks around $3 that CEO/CFO will be getting a lot of sideways glances in meetings and questions around why they haven't been able to translate corporate progress into share price progress or state a convincing case to investors why oncology is real and big, and why they haven't convinced anyone to bite on NASH partnership. If they vest into options worth zippo, they will eventually start to look elsewhere to get full compensation at a company that has a following in the capital markets. We do benefit from this incentive in some ways.
PWIB123 wrote: I'm leaning toward giving them until the end of the month to convince me I shouldn't bail and invest elsewhere. I can always buy back in, and right now, I'm not convinced the share price will see any significant staying power on a pop on good news. Meanwhile, I'm making money everywhere else but here. The market obviously thinks management has made a huge mistake by not keeping it informed. The proof is in the share price and volume. Maybe there is some legitimate reason the BOD has to keep so many helpful clues so close to the vest that's protecting us from something we can't see and would not be good temporarily, but I can't see it.
I still want to know more about why those options were granted the way they were. I'm not sure I had clarity on that issue based on the responses here. Seems it could have been a slimy play or nothing unusual. That combined with the appearance of Paul and the BOD misleading the market on the other topics you all have discussed has led me to conclude I might not be able to trust the company. That's beginning to become a major issue for me withe the lack of communication.