Interestingly, Knight Bridge Group (Ms. Wei Tong) is no longer listed as a 5% owner.
That was actually approved by the shareholders?
There has to be some kind of misunderstanding on how the options work.
I didn't have a real stake in the stock last year when the meeting was held, but only a trading position on and off.
I would suggest in this year's meeting, all shareholders vote for the 1-year choice on compensation. And seriously restrict the options granting program. The management won't get away with anything, if the stock is so depressed. Everyone needs to do a better job on this.
I would just be happy if they were options. They aren't. They are shares issued with no cost to the recipient.
An option requires the recipient to put up some of their own capital. If management is issued market-priced options, then management receives no benefit from options compensation unless shareholders see a positive return.
By giving their very young CFO two million dollars worth of stock in addition to his $400k annual salary, he can preside over an abysmal shareholder investment result and leave the situation a millionaire.
I told the company's management last summer that I would prefer market priced options to share grants, but flat-out told them that with their track record I was expecting them to come out with restricted share grants. And, of course, that's exactly what they did - complete with the shortest vesting period (6 months for 100%!!!) I have ever seen any public company even try to get away with.
One of the problems with conflicts of interest is that managers don't share your interests...
Gee. I was hoping you'd stop the meaningless exchange with me.
Weren't you and, if I remember it correctly, valueinvestor were both rather "concerned", to say it lightly, and most vocal about the options granted?
Now is the time to do something serious about that, don't you think so?
If I were the one to be consulted, I'd say the options granted need to go down at least 50%+, or no more than 1% of total equity. And as the share count currently stands, it would be less than 500,000 shares.
Investors must reach an agreement on the issue, and voice their concerns and, hopefully, set some kind of limit for the years to come.
Great post. You're the man. What is the source of the funds you invest?
I'm impressed that you didn't make any bullish investments in Yongye until the middle of April.
I can't predict the future. But I can calculate the price of something and compare it to what I'm getting.
But reading SEC filings is all 'insider' hocus pocus and foolish naivate. That's why I recommend NOT reading them and instead focus on 'the wall street'.
When I look at the most successful investors of all time, it's all genius market timers and never anyone so inexperienced to compare price to value using publicly available corporate filings...
"But I have read Grants posts and find them positive and lucid to YONG longs. I have no idea as to why he is villified."
You might try reading some of his posts today to see why he is "villified." Are these the posts of a gentleman? The posts of someone who, at least occasionally, accepts the ideas of others as valid arguments or concerns?
If you have followed H_G_H's advice on YONG for the PAST 12 MONTHS, what has that gotten you?
Answer: a pocketful of losses.
No matter how many times YONG has been "washed out", or the hedge funds have sold short the stock, etc....in spite of all that, where is YONG now compared to 12 months ago? How many times has H_G_H called for YONG to be "higher X number of months from now", when it never happens?
One may disagree with how H_G_H presents himself (as a know-it-all), but his value is in his advice. And where has that advice gotten you?
By the way, have you noticed his forecasts for YONG stock price at the end of the year? A few months ago, it was in the teens, then it came down to $10-$11, then it was $10, and now it is barely $9. What does that tell you? Answer: he hates to be wrong, and so will change his forecast to make sure it doesn't happen. He expects people to forget about his previous forecasts, as if they never happen.
You should take your blinders off when it comes to H_G_H. Your stock account's value will live longer.
The "facts" offered by global all seemed so "insider" oriented, and YET, global still failed to buy the calls, which he/she claimed to have held, at prices close to the right timing.
One must wonder what those "facts" really meant to provide. I mean, is that how all "investment advisers" do to offer some sort of insiders' anecdotes, instead of trying to get the timing right?
Oh, of course, global doesn't care about timing. You're in the stock markets, and you claimed to be an "adviser", but you don't care about one of the two most critical aspects of the stock markets. Gosh, you wonder why most of investors lost money.
Now, let's get back on track with this topic -
The Executive Compensation must be reasonable, and must be reined in, b/c this is a company still in early development phase.
We need a collective big enough to limit the excessive compensations.
Could we come up with some sort common ground in time on the issue? Any good suggestions?
"I don't think "be careful" has been overused on this board at all. There are people on here who confirmed holding over 50% of their hard-earned (I assume) savings in this one company. Those are people who need to be told to be careful, not about trading in CBEH or NEP or whatever other strange RTO stocks you fancy yourself an expert on."
"And you are an a**hole. Period."