Our website is made possible by displaying non-intrusive online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling or pausing your ad blocker.
As you can see from the resolution 8, the ESOS to senior officer was rejected by 61 shareholders, they are probably the biggest shareholders with majority shareholding, which allow them to influence the outcome of the voting. While for the ESOS u mentioned that is accepted was for the Chef Technology Officer. It seems like they are prefer to grant ESOS to higher-valued staff
Nerraw, I think it is because, although 137 shareholders rejected the proposal, but they only hold about 24% of the shares, (around 370 million). The 62 shareholders, although they are lesser individuals, but they hold the majority -about 75%, or 1,135 million of shares. Thus, these 62 shareholders had greater voting power, so the proposal was accepted.
Ya, Narrow. I’m also wondering what caused the substantial increase in the admin exp..
I rarely see anyone sharing any info or analysis about natgate here
Shin, Revenue (100%)- COGS (96.5%)= Gross Profit (3.5%)
Ya, I did see its administrative expenses surged,
But admin expenses is under operating expenses not directly related to production. (gross profit- operating expenses+ other income - tax= net profit)
But it was already clear from the previous quarterly reports that its COGS constituted about 90% of its revenue, but no one seemed to mention it when the share price shot up. Now that it’s dropping, everyone suddenly wants to play analyst.
