Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
OKnPV, all the hedge funds can hope for is that we shoot ourselves in the foot just one more time with another 'we shareholders are being screwed'-hissy fit. the RS brou-haha, the ESOP brou-haha... what will be our next shot in the direction of our collective big toe?
i haven't either.
allowing the exceptions you note, most attorneys and doctors too, are motivated by maximizing their income, i.e. their bonus-equivalent. that was my point.
my wave money was my beer money. get it? thanks for the advice.
how many doctors or lawyers do you know?
correction noted.
there was a problem concerning support for hybernation mode.
bingo!
red herring!
flash manufacturers will have no problem supplying flash component modules to any OEM, to be integrated into their product designs, just as is done now with the manufacture of the portable music players that use flash memory. you are pushing a shameless red herring, and regretably, some here are taking you seriously.
You're undecided, but asking the right questions.
My last post was a response to the question raised by OKnPV in post #142967, but it did not post as a reply post.
i have sat in meetings that functioned like board meetings (executive committee at GM, for example) and have seen the effect that one person with a diverse viewpoint, or one person addressing a problem from a different reservoir of experience, can have in acheiving a positive outcome. There must be some benefit in institutionalizing such BoD diversity, which would include having the diversity provided by a shareholder-director, because variant examples are found, in statutory governmental boards, and in European BoD's which have worker-directors, and these seem to work well.
there's a proverb that is applicable ('cutting off your nose to spite your face!')
in a year's time this objection will be a non-issue, because the float will reflect a much larger non-wavoid component, and any move to put a 'shareholder' representative on the board will not necessarily be synonymous with putting a member of the wavoid 'cult' on the board.
I've been here ten years now. I prefer to look at the shoreline ahead, not the water under the bridge. To each his own.
Are you standing for nomination?
Huuum.
Do you need SKS's telephone number?
Is it the wisist investment? it depends on one's time horizon. mine hasn't been reached yet. Has yours?
join the club!
From the blindly credulous idiot, what's so unreasonable or sinister about this explanation?
I support it.
one's labor is 'no cost'???
have you looked at our short tally recently? WHY is it so large? Maybe the shorts have a better assessment of current shareholder value.
'way to many' realative to what objective criterion? ...'way to high' for what purpose or object? If they want to abuse the plan, they will abuse it whatever its terms or limits.
i'm not concerned about objections, rather, just what is the likely result, if your view of how to vote prevails. i have tried to state my position in terms of what results it might bring, and i wish others would focus on likely results if their position on the vote prevails.
you don't see any resentment? unbelievable! some have explicitely confessed it.
pray tell, how do you 'drive sales' of a zero-market technology? go on, keep feeding the emotion!
Why? Because while we are convulsing over how many pennies we should offer new recruits in the bonus package, microsoft is circumventing our technology, our business opportunity, and our competitive lead.
what's unexpected about that?
this rational for objecting to the proxie proposal is unbelievably obtuse:
"If you already have "the best" talent, can there be more of "the best"? That even sounds dumb. So please don;t swallow the line about needing options to attract the best talent."
It is irrational because even if you had Albert Einstein-level talent or intellects on the payroll and the expected ramp-up strarted, you would need to recruit many other warm bodies at his level. A 100 player roster won't cut it. If you didn't aggressively recruit,, you can kiss the expected growth good-bye. The "the one's we have are good enough" argument would sound patently ridiculous if uttered in any similar business context.
it's no big deal. one side or the other is going to have the honor of sabotaging this venture. so, cross your fingers....
putting the trust/don't trust management issue aside, and assuming that this proposal was accepted, can someone among the vocifereous objectors, in a point by point fashion, persude me of what deliterious things will befall my investment, or the prospect for success of the company. i don't hear that specificity in your post, and i haven't heard it in any prior posts. absent that, all i'm hearing is resentful, incoherent or inspecific ranting.
Two shifts today, huh?
what's 'excessive' -- people who complain don't give any objective basis for what, in their mind, is not'excessive'. the only rationale seems to be, 'the smaller, the better.'.
micro, i didn't invest in YOUR company, and i didn't invest in a going concern, where promoting shareholder value should be among the paramount concerns. When Wave becomes a going concern, with demonstrably sustainable revenues, I will be concerned about 'maintaining shareholder value'. Maybe some don't get it, but now is not the time. We are getting close, but now is not the time to carp about 'shareholder value'. Get real. Until there are sustainable revenues, 'shareholder value' is a meaningless concept.
please e-mail this suggestion to SKS. A concensus-building solution is obviously necessary.
Your post is harsh, and some may say impolitic, but i'm glad you had the guts to say what is in it. i agree with you 110%!