| |
On July 5, I received a notice for the annual meeting, including a list of proposed directors. Why do you think that some of those who are closest to the firm own almost no stock?
Mr. Wang, a "self-employed businessman," a director since Feb 1992, owns 5000 shares. Mr. Kelly, a lawyer, a director since Jan 1994, owns none. Mr. Lloyd, a "management consultant" and a nominee for a previously non-existent position, owns 100.
The data on shares owned is provided by the nominees themselves, and possibly those gents have a massive number of stock options.
Still, one wants to invest with people whose reward is tied to the stock price, and not in an optional way.
Does the reader think this is an important subject and if so, will he mention it at the annual meeting? On a darker side: why are we so convinced of future prosperity if the directors are not? |
|
