insider ownership
Going thru the posts over past few days, I am struck by the number of posters who are incensed about GTCB management striking a deal not aligned with the interests of shareholders. I sympathize with that point of view, but feel it is both somewhat mistaken and moot (in that it is virtually a done deal).
Dew pointed out that businesspeople outnumber the scientists on the BOD.
Let's also consider insider interest .
From the proxy statement DEF 14A (Filed: 24-04-2006)(pardon the formatting):
Number of Shares Percent of
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner + Beneficially Owned Class
Directors and Named Executives:
Geoffrey F. Cox (1) 831,350 1.36 %
Robert W. Baldridge(2) 65,075 *
Kenneth A. Bauer(3) 15,000 *
Francis J. Bullock(4) 72,500 *
James A. Geraghty(5) 225,527 *
Michael J. Landine(6) 15,000 *
Pamela W. McNamara(7) 33,800 *
Marvin L. Miller(8) 32,000 *
Alan W. Tuck(9) 57,000 *
John B. Green (10) 381,316 *
Gregory F. Liposky (11) 246,922 *
Harry M. Meade (12) 335,508 *
Daniel S. Woloshen (13) 244,479 *
All executive officers and directors as a group (13 persons) 2,555,477 4.18 %
Five Percent Stockholders:
Genzyme Corporation (14) 5,298,243 8.66 %
500 Kendall Street,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142
William Harris Investors, Inc. (15) 2,694,812 5.23 %
Without even trying to conjecture about the interest of Genzyme and Wm Harris Investors, the executive officers and directors own a healthy chunk of the company. I'd like it to be higher but >4% is high enough to make me feel good if not warm and fuzzy about their interests being aligned with mine.
Also, the latest 10Q lists about another 4.4 million options outstanding, of which about half are at prices under $4.
If I am figuring correctly, counting together the insider ownership and reasonably in the money options, management has an interest in the company around 8%. So, I think it is expedient and short-sighted to blame them for not being aligned with shareholders.
urche
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
