Sentences with phrase «n't reward its shareholder»

The bottom line is that BlackBerry has certainly not rewarded the shareholders.

Not exact matches

The challenge claimed that a majority of shareholders did not support the authorization, at the 2013 annual meeting, of an increase in the number of shares used to reward Souki and other executives; the very increase that made Souki the highest paid CEO in America (he received 6.3 million shares in February 2013).

Just because a company succeeded in making the Fortune 500 does not mean it rewarded its shareholders — in fact, every year, at least a handful of corporations fail miserably in the stock returns department.

I don't mean run it in the red — I mean pay yourself a huge salary, reward yourself with a gigantic bonus regardless of actual company performance, and issue a special class of shares that only you own that gives you ten times the dividends the other shareholders receive.

This hasn't stopped Apple from richly rewarding its American shareholders with fat dividends and stock buybacks that raise share prices.

However, it would not take long for the market to realize the improvement in the fundamentals of the business and reward THO for creating shareholder value.

That's because corporations plan to reward shareholders as profits increase, not raise wages for employees or hire more people.

A company that raises its dividend is not only rewarding its shareholders but also indicating its confidence in the future, and its potential for on - going profitability.

The owners of Primark appear to have thought outside the box in attempting to ensure that executives are fairly rewarded, while safeguarding that those rewards are not disproportionate to outcomes for shareholders.

Now, tomorrow, we have to qualify because we can not miss on the cash reward... The all season would have been for nothing (ask the shareholders, Gazidis and Wenger).

She makes clear that she does not understand the purpose of profit when she scoffs about voucher programs and charter schools that «divert... taxes to pay profits to investors» and «turn a profit off their children, in order to reward their shareholders.»

GM shareholders will be rewarded with dividends if not gain in share price.

Of course, they might not be making as much as people imagine, but there certainly is a perception — and the actions of big media companies don't often do anything to dispell it — that for all the talk of protecting intellectual property and rewarding creators, it's actually the big media companies and their shareholders who get most of the rewards.

Altria is not a deep value stock, but the company's strong brand based competitive advantage makes it likely Altria will continue to reward shareholders with rising dividends.

ExxonMobil, Goldcorp, and BHP Billiton are great companies that should be rewarding for shareholders over the long term, but high growth is not coming.

However, if he does not, the board should replace him with someone who wants to reward shareholders now.

However, there is very little possibility of growth in this industry, and in the next 20 years, the company might won't even be in any profit to reward its shareholders with dividends.

Simply put, if you're not looking for the two extra ways companies reward shareholders in addition to just dividends, you're taking on extra risk and you're not going to maximize your total returns.

Private equity would also be interested, especially today, but shareholders wouldn't be rewarded enough as private equity would want the upside of the cost cuts and restructuring.

In general, particularly now, I don't believe shareholders are being properly rewarded for this asset / financial strength.

Businesses that exhibit consistent growth and profitability while rewarding shareholders should generate more wealth than those that don't.

And despite the economics, that isn't actually what their shareholders were looking for anyway — since the 80s, companies have been increasingly rewarded for focus, rather than diworsification.

But management hasn't provided sufficient info (or insight) for shareholders to perform any kind of cost - benefit / risk - reward analysis of their own regarding this investment.

I don't recall having seen an example of that kind of situation myself — but I think I spoke to that risk here: «At the v worst, I think there's a risk KWG shareholders end up cashed out, or flipped into Conwert shares, with little reward in the way of a premium.»

Assuming a base case of about $ 5.5 billion in free cash flow and 3 % annual growth, Home Depot stands to reward shareholders with roughly 8.5 % returns in the long haul — not outstanding by any measure, but its results are likely more reliable than your average ticker symbol.

While he is doubtless correct in saying that the fund was unique well - suited to the current market and that it won't always be a market leader, it's equally correct to say that this is one of the most consistently risk - conscious, more consistently shareholder - sensitive and most consistently rewarding EM funds available.

As I've said before, I find it hard to invest in (what looks like) a low risk / easy reward transaction when I can't confirm the underlying value... And with this deal, I just don't see the 3.92 cts per share that's been promised as a shareholder payout... All I see are worthless shares in a hopelessly insolvent company — and I thought some shareholders would see the same thing and bail out at any price.

They've been a great company in terms of rewarding shareholders with rising cash dividend payouts, and I see no reason this won't continue for the foreseeable future.

Yes, a diminishing supply will raise prices for consumers, which at the moment appears to reward shareholders well, but investors are supposed to look ahead into the future and anticipate areas of strong economic growth, and one can not reasonably conclude this will be the case for fossil fuels.