are welcome in my mind....so it was not me just woke up!......but

Some people on both forms think I am Bias or a Pumper of a BAD stock or what Ever.....

But just to drive some things into this difference of option....let me say:

If a company 6 years ago??? or so; was Halted for the company not filing, the CEO & others Jump Ship.

You were asked or maybe pleaded with(as no one else would take the Job)to come on board and fix this mess; would you even consider it when you already have a NEW Company Job and need to get this new Company(FMG) off the ground and listed on the Venture?

Hell No, I would not! My Job was too much as it was! (12 hours aday, weekend & emergencies at Night too). I also had a Leadship Position before I retired to the SUN!

We have come along ways in this Stormy Sea since 2008!!! And we are still alive and growing.

Ok enough Said!

Here is an artical to ponder!

When Is That CEO's Bonus Wrong?

By Vedran Vuk

The press despises CEOs getting raises on top of bonuses on top of stock options, while the rest of us are barely keeping up with inflation. However, there's a special level of anger reserved for those CEOs whose bonuses go up when their profits and stock prices go down. We should be angry, right? Aren't losses matched with bonuses a clear sign of poor corporate governance? Actually, this isn't always the case.

Certainly, if the CEO has performed poorly, he doesn't deserve a bonus. However, how does one define performance? Despite what most people think, profits and the stock price aren't always the best metrics. No, I haven't gone crazy. Think about this from a non-corporate perspective.

When a crew member on a sinking ship saves the lives of dozens, there's only one word to describe him or her - hero. All sorts of adoration and sometimes even awards are bestowed on such individuals. However, what if we treated this hero like the media treats a CEO facing losses? "Hey, this crew member might have been responsible for sinking the ship. Perhaps he's no hero at all. Forget about the lives he saved; he and rest of the crew are responsible for the sinking."

Before throwing the CEO or your poorly performing stock overboard, there's a few questions to ask yourself about management with the ship example in mind. First and foremost, did the CEO sink the ship? It's one thing if the CEO was navigating through a hurricane and he hit the shore. It's a whole different matter if he sank the ship thanks to his bad decisions.

Second, once the ship started sinking, how did he react? Did he save almost everyone onboard, or were his evacuation plans even worse than his navigation? If he sank the ship but saved the crew, it's a gray area. You probably still want to throw him overboard. However, if the ship ran into a major hurricane and the CEO's decisions saved the whole crew, then he might be rightfully a hero.

The same goes with managing a company. If the company lost $500 million, we might immediately consider the CEO to be a failure. But what if the CEO's decisions saved the company from losses of $750 million? Without his decision-making, things would have been worse. Now, I'm saying this from a personal perspective, but if someone saved me $250 million, I wouldn't feel so bad for giving him a $5 million bonus for a job well done.

Whether a CEO deserves his bonus or not isn't always black and white - or should I say "in the black or in the red?" Sometimes one can give an excellent performance in bad times.

There's also a flip side to this issue. There are times when companies are making record profits, and the CEO doesn't deserve his bonus. This is particularly important in commodity-driven industries, such as mining and the oil industry. If the price of gold or oil shoots through the roof, the profits of most mining and oil companies are going to go up as well. In turn, the CEOs may get special rewards for meeting certain levels of profitability or share price, or they get a huge payoff from their options finally being in the money.

However, they didn't do jack to earn those profits. They just happened to be the lucky schmuck sitting in the CEO chair when the gold price jumped 30%. In some cases, higher gold prices might actually be hiding incompetence. While total revenue is up, production might be down, but the CEO gets rewarded anyway. While the money is good, lots of people will shrug off otherwise poor performance. But consider that someone who is underperforming in good times is probably going to be a disaster in bad times.

Firms with a proprietary trading division - mostly banks as well as companies with commodity derivatives trading departments - often face the same situation. The trading group will make a huge profit, and as a result of the success, the CEO will get a bonus as well for a good year. However, we can't attribute the success of the traders to the CEO. If the CEO had the idea to expand a new division into Asia and the division did very well, then he deserves a reward. But in the case of the trades, it's hard to argue that the CEO's plans contributed to their success. If you tell your shareholders and analysts that part of your plan is the traders getting lucky next quarter, things will not go over well.

When you're looking at the management of a company, it's not simply about being in the plus or the minus. Instead, it's about having a CEO whose decisions are cutting losses in the bad times and whose decisions are outperforming the competition in good times. That might be hard for the media to sort out, but as an investor, you can get ahead by putting aside that bias and judging performance objectively.

Cheers

W.C. GUy