As much as I would like to hold their feet to the fire ...
I won't cut off my nose to spite my face by voting NO to the RS.
If we are to see appreciation in share price in the marketplace again when good news is available, such as the multi-MW orders in the recent past that have produced only ho-hum short-term results at best, we need to have residence in a market that allows all potential investors, including mutual funds and the like, to invest without restriction via market, price or whatever.
For that reason only I voted yes to the RS. "Enlightened self-interest"?
With the recent (more-or-less) change in the board's attitude regarding "a taste of the cheese", now allowing only a peek from afar at "the cheese" by not handing out bonuses even though targets were missed, I feel the incentive is sufficient for management to struggle with all possible fervor to achieve the goals laid out. Evidence of this, I think, lays in the recent restructuring to cut costs meaningfully in the SG&A area (salaries) that will benefit the bottom line directly. I felt it should have been done sooner as salaries were always bloated relative to revenue and performance IMO.
The supposed better shorter paths of communication may or may not yield much as good communication may have existed already. Further, the new recipients of suggestions or thoughts from "below" in the hierarchy may not be as receptive as were the folks that are no longer in the loop and may have carried more weight in the upper echelons. We just don't know.
Anyway, I expect that the shorters will try to take advantage. It is managements job, and their need as well, to execute in a changing and variable environment in such a manner that the goals are achieved and the shorters are put at risk if they choose to hop on this stock again like they have in the past.
In the long run all any of us can hope for is that what trust we must have in management, if we choose to invest, will not be violated.
Having said that, our trust has, IMO, been violated in the past (the most egregious being, IMO, "the taste of cheese" that had not been earned and the capital raise after we were told COH was sufficient). But being human I assume they, like I, have sometimes had to experience a "learning curve". The withdrawal of the cheese is one example of progression upon that curve. The recent restructuring to cut some fixed costs is another. It's likely the reserve for the BPC AR is another.
This gives the possibility that lessons have been learned and will not be soon forgotten. One could rightfully expect that a faster response to negative influences in the business environment would occur.
If not, we should throw them out. They had their "Aw shit" that wiped out 1,000 "Atta boys" (I don't know if they had accumulated that many, in all honesty). Any more "Aw shits" and they don't deserve a chance to earn more "Atta boys".
MHO,
Bill
AI
