”And to James666, I love all your analysis about the company prospects but with all due respect the fundamental of a company does not mean anything if management's interest is not aligned with shareholders.”
I have incurred heavy losses on a few of the companies where the stories told were fluffy and just kept the shareholders living in hope. One of it, many fellow shareholders here would know of, had the CEO paid himself well, told a good story and was able to walk in and out of the Pentagon, he sold out at a good profit and became a professional cyclist. That, is what I meant about poor fundamentals where promise was made and not much to show.
In FLC, I am able to corroborate external information about us that is not sourced within the company, we have more than 230 reference sites compared to 12 by our competitors, we are generating a growing revenue and reducing corporate cost, these are the fundamentals I am referring to. It is the non performance of the share price that baffles me, and I am not sure if that is within the control of the management.
For me, I agree with you that the alignment of interest of the management and the shareholders is an important criteria and one of the most too. We may have our views on what is seemed as fair, other bigger shareholders like Plan B, Watermark Services, Lieberman family etc also would vote accordingly at the AGM to make sure the management’s interest is aligned with theirs.
The question of fairness is a difficult one and I am sure it is hard to compare against any other organisations and at different space and time. I had voted against the resolutions that I not agreed to, had my say and those are the only few things I could do within what I am able to do. I could buy more, or sell out depending on how I see the fundamental directions of the company, that is the other thing that is within my control.
For the options, I have let it go. In 3 weeks, I would like to see how well we are doing at the next update.
Expand
