Questions / Diligence maybe Collective Group knows
Mar 17, 2021 13:56:36 GMT
icemandios, Allin, and 1 more like this
Post by dnr08 on Mar 17, 2021 13:56:36 GMT
Mar 10, 2021 20:26:35 GMT @ronnieg said:
So agreed, just kill the thread, it was a waste of time.There is quite a bit of solid information in this thread. There is also good information in many other threads on this board. However, in the world of investments, where money is at risk, there is a hierarchy of importance ascribed to the mass of information available about a company. Granted, sometimes groups of investors assign high importance to information that seems peripheral or perhaps too embryonic as to be deemed relevant to conventional market participants. And of course that's what makes a market. So while there will always be subjective interpretations of information flow from a public company, there are maxims and standards of importance on which the majority of investors can agree. Is a rapidly accelerating revenue profile usually deemed positive? Yes. Are quarterly earnings increases fueled only by share buybacks and accounting gimmickry often met with skepticism, lack of buying, perhaps selling, or even shorting? Yes.
For illustrative purposes, I've posted several peer reviewed articles from the scientific scholarship over the past few years on both 4K and Rayaldee. These posts have received "likes." Are those articles important and relevant? I suppose they are, if judged in the courtroom of OPKODD. But my perspective has always been to ask whether any such data, which proving or corroborating importance and/or usefulness, can translate to success in the marketplace. Put another way: while we may cite consensus agreement among scientists on the effectiveness of Opko's products, has our management team capitalized on these valuable assets? Will Lucid prove to be a formidable competitor to Tesla because its car is sexier, faster, and has more range? Well, there are the products, in this case electric cars, and there are those responsible for making and sell them. On paper, can GM squish TSLA like bug? Oh yeah. Have they thus far? Will they in 2-3 years? Do investors believe that? No, at least not yet.
So while I appreciate the "likes" for my deposits of apparently important info into our OPKODD blender, for my part I'm still waiting for the monetization to happen. My point is that there is a distinction as to the importance of the information. I would argue that the scientific info, however convincing, is only important if it can be turned into profits.
And, to some of Ronnie's points, there is no question whatsoever that the departure of a Treasurer before a 10-K release certainly looks suspect, and in fact could be troubling. However spun, and hereto such spin has been unverified, it is not a good look. I dug all over the internet and Bloomberg trying to find out more about Logal's early career, what his accounting bona fides are. He may be the reincarnation of Ernst AND Young, but I cannot find a lick of info as to his pedigree. His CV in the proxy statement and on the web site seems to only go back to Nabi Biopharmaceuticals in 2005. Can't find where he went to college, if he majored in accounting, whether he is even a CPA. So maybe Rulfo did indeed go to a SPAC, and maybe he went for opportunity and not because he found something at Opko he didn't like. But it is interesting, as Ronnie points out that Mr. Hernandez's landing spot hasn't yet hit the SPAC tape. Given the rage for SPACs today, it's an understatement to say that things are moving very fast. His resignation was effective on 2/1, so he may have given notice in mid-late January. In any case it's been at least six and a half weeks since he resigned; that's a lifetime in the SPAC world, where the timelines to merge/go public are VERY compressed.....for good reason, the players know that the window may only be open for so long. One other thing: Rulfo had the accounting pedigree; he was a Senior Manager at PWC, the typical incubator for future CFOs. And he was on a new track at Opko, having been recently promoted with a press release full of kudos to his efforts. So now we're back to Logal.
The main point is that, while I'm not saying that Logal is incompetent or that Rulfo smelled a rat, that's not even the main issue. It is simply that there seems to always be one thing or another that feels disorienting, off-putting, when it comes to Opko. Consider the following:
On 2/18/21 the company filed its 10-K. Included in Item 9B ("Other Information") in that document was this statement, in the wake of the roles left vacated by the departure of Rulfo: "No new compensatory plan arrangements were entered into with Mr. Logal in connection with his appointment as the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer." Yet the very next day, on 2/19/21 (documented in an 8-K three days later on 2/22), the Compensation Committee changed its mind, and not only gave Logal 350,000 options with a $4.81 exercise price, they also: "approved a cash bonus payment of $500,000 to Mr. Adam Logal, the Company’s Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer; and (iii) approved an annual salary increase for Mr. Logal from $600,000 to $700,000." That sure sounds to me like a "new compensatory plan arrangement," apparently an overnight switching of compensation gears.
Can you see why this just seems confusing, and maybe even shady? Yet it seems quite typical for how Opko management operates. The street examines these filings with a fine toothed comb, and so the Blackrock analyst emails the PM with her concerns and recommends trimming their position when appropriate. When what we really need is for Blackrock to add a bunch of readily available shares being sold by the ever-present shorts.
In the same section of the 10-K (9B, Other Information) was this: "On February 12, 2021 the Board of Directors of the Company approved an amendment to the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”) to enhance the advance notice provisions for director nominations and stockholder proposals. Under the amended Bylaws, a stockholder who wishes to nominate a director must include (1) a written questionnaire in the form required by the Company, (2) additional information about the structure, ownership and trading in Company’s securities or any related derivative agreements and (3) any associated performance-related fees. The recommending stockholder also has obligations to update any notice provided to the Company in a timely manner."
Seems like the company is circling the wagons a bit, does it not? Public companies are not insular enterprises. But Opko does its level best to keep its secrets island-bound. Which I suppose is a metaphor for Frost's residence, now that I think of it.