At the end of 1999, there were under 50M shares outstanding, much less than the 56M we have today. Per 1999 10K there were "48,474 shares issued and outstanding"
And the obvious question to ask is what they did with the proceeds of that dilution so that you can then put that dilution in the proper context. Context is what you are lacking.
Why are you avoiding the obvious fact that IDCC increased headcount from 126 in 1999 to 319 in 2002 --- or by 153%--- while increasing total operating expenses from $44.3M in 1999 to $78.7M in 2002 --- or by 78%. Notice how they kept cash/investments relatively constant at $80M-$90M during that turnaround stage?
You claim to have more than 20 years of private equity experience yet I have to explain this to you??? LOL. And you do know that in the frantic competition for a shrinking pool of private equity funds, the top drawer private equity guys (top 5%) are actively undermining the lower tier private equity guys (95%) like you so they can keep their funding, right?
If I were you I wouldn't go around trying to win arguments with your credentials as a private equity guy because more people are beginning to realize that pretentious accountants/consultants and pretentious venture capitalists were seriously complicit in the dotcom implosion, one of the most spectacular misallocation of capital in history.
What's wrong with trying to win arguments with facts?
The current ISO plan is excessive and rich by any measure;
Again, you suffer from lack of context. Rambus is currently IDCC's closest peer in the licensing business in terms of sales. IDCC management gets 18% of all options granted while RMBS management gets nearly 30% of all options granted.
IDCC's ISO program is above average but not excessive even though IDCC outperformed more than 95% of all technology companies during the last 2 years.
The same holds true for salaries. I would consider IDCC's executive salaries/bonuses excessive if these exceed QCOM's, but it doesn't. In fact, IDCC's packages track more closely to RMBS and ARMHY. Again, above average but not excessive even though IDCC outperformed more than 95% of all technology companies during the last 2 years.
But what really amuses me about your post is that utter lack of intellectual honesty. You can't even relate the changing nature of IDCC's cost structure -- including total compensation -- and its revenue base with the amount of shareholder value created.
That's ultimately your loss, not mine.
