-
03-04-2017, 05:14 PM
#15551
Originally Posted by Dentie
You seem to be obsessed with dissing this Company Balance - all because you didn't make the dosh you thought you were going to! How dare they treat Balance in this way!!!! Get over it for god's sake will you - most others have. A broken record is much nicer listening to.....
The point is...Jackie didn't have to spend .1c on the shares.
Despite your exclamation marks ..there is a flaw in your logic--Buying shares at far less than the current share price is not what many would call simply having faith in the success of the company---Can you think of some of the other reasons why she,or most anyone would do this?---If you cant, then perhaps offer me your shares at that price,and I will gladly take you up on that...(sometimes experience helps to understand)
With the cap raising i guess they had to come up with a different angle for bonuses,that was'nt to blatent....but yes.. err..I guess she didnt HAVE to do it.
-
03-04-2017, 07:27 PM
#15552
Originally Posted by skid
Despite your exclamation marks ..there is a flaw in your logic--Buying shares at far less than the current share price is not what many would call simply having faith in the success of the company---Can you think of some of the other reasons why she,or most anyone would do this?---If you cant, then perhaps offer me your shares at that price,and I will gladly take you up on that...(sometimes experience helps to understand)
With the cap raising i guess they had to come up with a different angle for bonuses,that was'nt to blatent....but yes.. err..I guess she didnt HAVE to do it.
Instead of trying to rush in to display your undoubted prowess in anything share related Skid - have another read of what I posted, then think about what my post was related to and lastly, why I posted it....then, maybe, you might connect the dots.
(Sometimes taking a moment to understand another poster's viewpoint before clambering to "attack the keyboard" may help to strengthen your experience).
-
03-04-2017, 07:44 PM
#15553
Originally Posted by Balance
Yup W69.
Will be very very interesting indeed - especially when you consider that the price on the options she exercised is way way below market price, and a review of the options granted to executives (page 40 below) showed none at that price was ever granted!
http://www.pacificedgedx.com/assets/...EPORT-2016.pdf
So how did she get to exercise at such highly favorable terms?
What's your theory, it's unlike you to leave an open question hanging?
-
03-04-2017, 08:12 PM
#15554
Originally Posted by Baa_Baa
What's your theory, it's unlike you to leave an open question hanging?
Directors (via the notice today) passed a resolution today to authorize the exercise of the options.
This is highly unusual as the terms of the options issued to executives are very clear - an issue price is set and the options vest and are exercisable over 3 years, 1/3rd each year of complete employment. The vesting and exercise of the options into ordinary shares are an automatic process and DOES NOT require a directors' resolution.
So why was there a resolution? Conclusion must be that the terms of the options to her had to be revised - exercise price reduced to grant her an immediate gain.
One way to keep an executive happy, I guess, at shareholders' expense. Yet another PEB special.
PS. Been around too long not to pick up such things - just as I picked up the donation of Snakk shares to a charitable trust by one Derek Handley was a disguise for him to sell shares at the same time.
Last edited by Balance; 03-04-2017 at 08:15 PM.
-
03-04-2017, 08:21 PM
#15555
Originally Posted by Balance
Directors (via the notice today) passed a resolution today to authorize the exercise of the options.
This is highly unusual as the terms of the options issued to executives are very clear - an issue price is set and the options vest and are exercisable over 3 years, 1/3rd each year of complete employment. The vesting and exercise of the options into ordinary shares are an automatic process and DOES NOT require a directors' resolution.
So why was there a resolution? Conclusion must be that the terms of the options to her had to be revised - exercise price reduced to grant her an immediate gain.
One way to keep an executive happy, I guess, at shareholders' expense.
Something that PEB is very good at doing.
PS. Been around too long not to pick up such things - just as I picked up the donation of Snakk shares to a charitable trust by one Derek Handley was a disguise for him to sell shares at the same time.
Surely the other Directors with options would have secured the same or similar rights to exercise, as a quid pro quo to receiving their vote of support, otherwise it would be inequitable to those other Directors as well, albeit as you are suggesting it is inequitable to shareholders? If so, one might anticipate others exercising their options at significant discount to current share price?
How about telling the whole story, in as much as you see it. I doubt anyone is in any doubt regarding your views on the state of the company but what you are suggesting in terms of equity/inequity and what may follow, which is another dimension?
-
03-04-2017, 08:28 PM
#15556
Originally Posted by Baa_Baa
Surely the other Directors with options would have secured the same or similar rights to exercise, as a quid pro quo to receiving their vote of support, otherwise it would be inequitable to those other Directors as well, albeit as you are suggesting it is inequitable to shareholders? If so, one might anticipate others exercising their options at significant discount to current share price?
How about telling the whole story, in as much as you see it. I doubt anyone is in any doubt regarding your views on the state of the company but what you are suggesting in terms of equity/inequity and what may follow, which is another dimension?
Why are options issued at market price (or a small discount - normally, up to 10%) at set times to executives? Incentive for them to perform and reap the benefits of a rising sp (from set levels) - or so it is often stated.
When directors pass a resolution to reduce the exercise price (note W69 and I have gone through the annual report and there are NO options issued at 36.29c ever), it goes against the underlying principle of why the options were issued in the first place.
But hi, this is PEB and there I rest my case.
Market still awaiting news of Tan Tock Seng Hospital User Program for Cxbladder 22 months after the big announcement - that's PEB too.
-
03-04-2017, 08:34 PM
#15557
Hey Balance - how many shares / options did our Jackie have an interest in prior to today?
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
-
03-04-2017, 09:04 PM
#15558
Originally Posted by winner69
Hey Balance - how many shares / options did our Jackie have an interest in prior to today?
Tried to find out but all a bit too hard.
Number exercised suggests she has around 800,000 options.
-
04-04-2017, 12:01 AM
#15559
Stretching out the coffers by getting the shareholders to pay the wages...
-
04-04-2017, 06:42 AM
#15560
Originally Posted by t.rexjr
Stretching out the coffers by getting the shareholders to pay the wages...
Good way of putting it.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks