LMA   

LMA is as dead as "ghost town"

No discussion can mean people are sticking to their belief in Santa Claus...
Anyway, it's traditional, so must carry on believing... hehehe...
Hope by believing, I will win a big trade as a Xmas present...

 

 

Very soon you'll see a lot of year-end window dressings as Fund Managers take a break, and LMA may benefit from that.

Maybe can consider to buy some on weakness - Santa Clause coffee money! Cheers!

 

No signal for LMA to rebounce till today! Think twice before act!

 

Aya... why are you so humble?

I admire you especially for the loyalty you have shown by the way you treat your stocks.

Hope the damn stocks recover very soon...  

 

Million thanks Manikamaniko for seeing me so "up".   Yes, I may become a "stupid celebrity" by buying the  LMA or SC shares when they become  "banana dollars"

 

Hikitty... :)

Maybe you can really become a celebrity one day... who knows...

Then you will become everyone's Baobei....

And you can start to auction your favourite apparel items at ridiculously high prices... hehehe...  

 

If your "baobei" becomes lower daily, it may "disappear" into the ground, or sea bed one fine day.  Will you still consider SC as your "baobei"  and "sniffle" or "wail" if that happens????  How low will SC go - 1 or "0" cent?  If only you or I know how low SC will go, we will become "million hairs"  I will even "pawn" my last pair of pants or underwear (i.e. If I am a celebrity, those items may be worth "millions"  ) to buy as many SC  shares as I can afford, if it dips to 1 cent each !!!  

 

Dear Hikitty... :) ...

When I like a stock, I will like it forever. ..

The fact that it is presently not everyone's Baobei doen't mean it can't remain one's Boabei forever...

It just means one can own the Baobei at a good price, which can get better (ie. lower) day by day, week by week.... Then one day, the Baobei will suddenly shine brightly!...

 

Manikamaniko:  U mean u r  an ardent client of  SC - such a junk share?  If I've offended your baobei SC, a million apologies. It's a junk coz' it is easily rattled and tossed up and down in the sea.  Hope it doesn't become shipwrecked one fine day!!! SC should become "fatter" in size so that it will not be shipwrecked, . (Yes , SC's now a "baobei"  that is being "caressed" all over by different cheapskate clients - hope I don't sound "mushy", eh!) Often reporting losses , but yet can zoom up like a missile and nosedive like a meteor.  When will it get out of the woods for sure?

 

Making more than $CoffeeBucks is easy if we do it properly...

By the way, how dare you say my Starcruise is a junk ???

It's my Baobei, you know? 
 

 

If making kopi $$$$ is only that easy!  Selling when a share moves down applies ONLY if it's speculative or junk e.g. Starcruise, Unifiber, or Unionmet (i.e. with absolutely no earnings visibility or new income driver - no offence intended to those holding those shares )  NOT  a value share.  Look at how value shares have withstood the downtrend ONLY to rebound with "fury".  Unless one is a contra trader and bought any value share at sky high prices, there is absolutely NO need to dump it when it dips .  Pointless to try and "time"  the market if it is a "value share". Sadly, the local market is still  "very impoverished" as evidenced by not all counters recovering to their 1997 prices yet,  and supported by daily traders and stags

 

In a bear market (aka downtrend), investors usually sell when they see a share moving down and down...

If they sell early, they save money... this is simple logic any kiasu person will understand.
Please don't scold the stock market beast or blame others...

It is your decision you should be scolding... hehehe..

 

Alamak!  Exercise price of the share option is sky high!!!.  Guess the mgt will have to  work very hard so that LMA share price moves up nearer the exercise price!.   Hope SGX would take appropriate action against LMA if it continues to mislead its shareholders and retail investors by not purchasing  LMA shares daily .  Though its first purchase on 2 November was stated as "daily", it failed to buy any on 12, 13 and 15 November.  Backed by the share buy-back scheme,  retail investors should buy LMA shares at its present low prices, with the assurance at least that LMA is not likely to become another CAO or ACCS fiasco!  Retail investors are very "funny" - buying only when a share keeps moving north, not when it's consolidating

 

Won't you agree with me that Shareholders would have benefitted more if not for the Option Shares? I'm not saying that the Directors shouldn't be rewarded. It is the accounting treatment of the reward - any incentive rewards like bonuses should be treated as expenses in the P&L A/Cs and reported as such.

The interest of the shareholders and that of the Option Holders is only aligned only when the share px is above the exercised px. There is no alignment when it is depressed like now! I don't see any alignment, do you? Cheers!

 

 

LMA Management must make every effort to communicate more clearly and beef up their IR.   Better late than never.  

The key intent as captured in their statement .........

"In structuring the scheme in this manner, the company has adopted the principle that before option holders can benefit from options granted to them, shareholders must have first benefited - and benefited significantly"

 

 

 

A balanced view indeed. A view is always balanced if you're looking at it with both eyes. If you closed an eye, it is no more balanced

If LMA is a start-up Company, then maybe giving Employees' Option Shares is more apt. Since LMA is already an established Company, the Magmt should exercise more discreet in issuing Option Shares. I'm not saying it is wrong, just be more discreet  in dealing with it. After all, all the directors are being remunerated for their services to the Company. If incentives should be given, it should come from the Company's coffer and not at the expense of Shareholders by issuing Option Shares (whether execised or not is not the question.). The Directors have nothing to lose if the Option Shares are not exercised, whereas Shareholders who paid 88c are the Losers in this case.

Maybe I'm reading the Author's balanced view with an eye closed! Cheers!

 

Business Times - 20 Nov 2007

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
A balanced view of LMA's exec share option scheme

WE refer to the article 'LMA's share option plan raises questions' (BT, Nov 2) by Michelle Quah and would like to respond to the questions raised in respect of our executive share option scheme.

This is necessary to correct the unfavourable impression created by the article and to provide your readers with a more balanced view of the scheme.

LMA does not agree with Ms Quah's comment that it has 'one of the more generous employee stock option schemes here'.

One has to look not only at the number of options granted but at the overall structure of the scheme - including the exercise price and vesting criteria - to determine whether the scheme is indeed generous.

Unlike any other employee share option plan of a company listed on the Singapore Exchange, the minimum exercise price of any option granted under LMA's scheme is equal to 120 per cent of the base price on the date of the grant.

The base price is defined as (a) in the case of options granted prior to March 1, 2007, the price of $0.88 per common share, and (b) in the case of options granted on or after March 1, 2007, the higher of the fair market value of the common shares on the date of grant and $0.88 per common share.

Fifty per cent of all options granted are characterised as 'time options', which generally vest in 20 per cent increments on the first through to the fifth anniversary of the grant date.

The other 50 per cent are characterised as 'PASO options' (Performance Accelerated Share Options). PASO options are in turn divided into eight tranches, with each tranche vesting only when the fair market value of the company's shares has increased 33 per cent over the base price and is sustained at not less than that level for a minimum of 10 consecutive trading days.

From the above, it can be seen that the minimum exercise price for all options granted to date is $1.056 per option (120 per cent of $0.88).

At the same time, before any portion of a PASO option can vest, the fair market value of the company's shares must first attain a price of $1.17 per common share (133 per cent x $0.88) and be sustained at not less than that level for a minimum of 10 consecutive trading days.

The next one-eighth tranche of the PASO option will vest only when the fair market value of the company's shares has risen by another 33 per cent of the base price or $0.29 (33 per cent x $0.88) to $1.46 per common share and be sustained at not less than that level for a minimum of 10 consecutive trading days.

The next one-eighth tranche of the PASO option will vest when the fair market value has attained $1.75 per common share ($1.46 plus $0.29), and the following one eighth at $2.04 per common share ($1.75 plus $0.29 ).

Hence, before any option holder, including directors, can benefit from any option granted, shareholders would have seen the value of their shares rise to at least $1.06 per share.

By the same token, by the time option holders can exercise even a quarter (two x one-eighth tranches) of their PASO options, the company's share price would have reached $1.46 per common share, which is likely only if there is sustained value creation.

In structuring the scheme in this manner, the company has adopted the principle that before option holders can benefit from options granted to them, shareholders must have first benefited - and benefited significantly.

This ensures that option holders' interests are not only strongly aligned to shareholders' interests but that option holders clearly understand that their interests can only be served if shareholders' interests have first been served.

In respect of the options granted to our non-executive directors - considered substantial and generous by Ms Quah - readers should note that these are one-time awards granted early in the directors' term of service so as to ensure that from the outset, directors' interests are closely aligned with those of shareholders.

The company considers its directors one of its key assets and does not see why it is deemed inappropriate that they should be well rewarded after they have been able to help create significant value for shareholders.

Surely, it must be a company's objective that its management and directors are adequately incentivised to create sustainable value for its shareholders?

The current performance of the company as a result of certain operational issues does not in any way detract from the fact that its option scheme puts shareholders' interests ahead of option holders' interests.

Ms Quah asked shareholders to question whether the executive options scheme will be tweaked - presumably to the benefit of option holders - in the light of the company's more modest financial performance this year.

Without commenting on the intent of this question, the company would like to state that there is no intention to pursue such course of action. To do so would be to depart from the cardinal principle of the scheme, which is to reward option holders only after shareholders have been rewarded - a point the article failed to highlight.

The article also questioned whether independent directors (and implicitly all non-executive directors) should be awarded share options, and if at all 'such a large number'. It advanced reasons why they should not, and provided some examples of possible consequences if they were.

It also raised the spectre that awarding 'a large number of stock options' to independent directors (as implied in the case of LMA) 'threatens their very mandate to remain independent'.

The company would like to point out that global opinion is divided on this issue. While some purists strongly advocate not granting such options, we are of the view that such options, if properly structured, as in the case of LMA's Scheme, can and will strongly align the interests of option holders with those of shareholders.

The scheme has not in any way compromised the independence and integrity of the three directors named in the article.

Finally, on the question of whether it is best practice for independent directors to be deciding the compensation of other independent directors, perhaps this question should be more appropriately directed to the corporate community at large, regulators and corporate governance advocates and commentators.

John KM Lim
Group Deputy Chairman
LMA International NV

 

 

Hikitty, sometimes it is good to be the 2k -  kiasu&kiasi. It is always better to be a living coward than a dead hero isn't it? My point is; when the odds (market conditions)  are against you, it is better to get out. Whether you're a Trader or a Long Term Player, you've to know when to sell! You can always come back when the Market conditions turn better. Always sell into strength - it doesn't matter whether you're winning or losing. Keep practising it and you could turn a losing investment into a winning one. Always be flexible! Cheers!

 

Agree absolutely with ten4one.  Doesn't mean that buying low is the ONLY route to make $$$.  Those who practise that is NOT a trader, but a "kiasu" or "kiasi" scrooge.  Despite other shares moving south today, LMA managed to move north instead (coz of the buy-back scheme). Sorry for those who have been making kopi $$$ short selling LMA shares for the past few days  - it's time to cough out your kopi $$$$!!!