My contention is that the co. has done a lot of damage to its reputation w/in the investment community w/ all the dilution.
I've sent e-mail to the CFO re: reducing the number of authorized shares and the co. doing a stock buy back now that the share price is astronomically low (it's much lower now, but that's another story).
In response, the CFO totally ignored my first question, and said the co. is not interested in buying shares back, but rather "increasing shareholder value ... by publicizing the company and increasing its profile to the investment community."
I pointed out, very professionally and politely, that the co.'s image in the investment community is very tarnished w/ investors that had been hurt by the dilution and the steep drop in the share price, and that all the publicity in the world will not overcome that short of the co. reporting huge gains in sales and earnings. I also pointed out that w/ all the excess cash, quite possibly the smartest use of the money at this time would be for the co. to reduce the o/s shares at ridiculously low prices, and THAT would be great publicity, informing the investment world that A) the co. values it shareholders and wants to reward them (as opposed to penalizing them); and B) that the co. is so sure of its future and that its stock is very undervalued that it is willing to gamble on itself while increasing return on shareholder equity.
Subsequently, the CFO refuses to communicate w/ me. That's great shareholder relations, don't you think?
And to add insult to injury, the co. has not done a blasted thing to improve its image since last fall, contrary to mgmt.'s promises of investing in a little investor relations.
Now, w/ the co.'s earnings report being late, we are quickly seeing further and further detoriation of any remaining goodwill the co. may have had w/ investors. I think you see that reflected quite well in the share price.
So, to answer your question, an American co. does not ignore investor contact, nor does it neglect to discuss and consider shareholder concerns (i.e., of course, it does not plan on insuring that its shareholders remain happy and continue to hold its stock).
I do have to say I have little experience and knowledge on how co.'s in the Far East view their shareholders, but in the U.S., co.'s realize that shareholders are OWNERS of the business, and forget that only at their own peril. If a co.'s current owners do not feel good about their ownership, how will non-owners feel? I think that the answer is rather obvious.
Spider, I'm sorry, but at this point, enhancing the co.'s home site has very, very little value to the co.'s common shareholders. What they really need to devote their time and energy to is TAKING CARE OF ITS INVESTORS. As fast as one can access a home page, one can also access other sites on the internet, including this one, learning the "true" story about CHRB.
I usually deplore talking down co.'s in which I currently own stock in such a public forum, but when the co.'s mgmt. does not care to privately and professionally deal w/ shareholder concerns, I have absolutely no qualms in taking the discussion public. It's my opinion that if the co. does not reverse the apathy towards its shareholders in quick fashion, it will rapidly become a pariah to U.S. investors. |
