Replies to post #141791 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[Snackman]

wash, I don't think we are objecting to the options for talent, I think we are objecting to THE POSSIBILITY of any individual getting 500,000 options EVERY YEAR.

[vickers2]

Wash, I already said I don't have a problem with employee options (as long as the number is reasonable) although I think 500,000 per year is a tad much.

[wavxmaster]

wash68

Do you think that Waves' codewriters have a good idea at the potential that Wave possesses! I'd much rather work for a company that gives me fewer options but has enormous potential(share appreciation) than working for a bigger company that prospects for share appreciation is limited!

Waves' shareprice has the potential to perhaps skyrocket, why would an employee that understands this decide to move? Wave also is small in size and if successful will grow with much room for advancement.

That is why we remain, there are many other investments that we might take, but the potential for appreciation we feel is with Wave, and so should they!

They should know better than us! If they leave then perhap[s the potential isn't that great afterall!

[internet]

Wash...re Options...I agree with you regarding using options to secure sought after employees....I have NO problem with increasing the number of shares for the option pool IF they will be used to reward the rank and file or recruit additional employees. What I DO have a problem with is the grotesque INCREASE in the number of options that can be granted to any individual on a yearly basis from ~166K to 500K. JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE....WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOLLARS BUT RATHER THE NUMBER OF SHARES. There is NO justification for this move at this moment in time.

Sincerely,

Jas

[UncleverName]

wash68, for myself, the question is not whether there is an ESOP plan, but again, the abiltiy to grant 1.2% of the company to an individual in a year. I daresay that the raise to 500,000 shares / person was not with the engineers in mind - nor, the janitor.

[scorpio_esq]

i second that. you share my opinion here.

[Weby]

Wash

An excellent post. However, my previous point was that this proposal might have been written so it clearly limited the possibility of EXCESSIVE grants to BoD and upper management.
This mood is a reaction to the 7% Wavexpress solution, loans, and an attitude of entitlement before results. Now that we all see results in the NEAR future, it feels, rightly or wrongly, like a slap across the face.

Perhaps SKS and upper management get upset with us because we don't always see their effort, respect their founder's rights, and understand the pressures they face.

There is no manual for the proper reimbursement of people in our society. The general rule is that you are entitled to what you can get so you get greed. The BoD should represent the shareholders here but they cannot. Thus, now that we appear to be at a wonderful place. (This whole discussion is moot if the price isn't about to go up substantially) This "conflict" is simply a form of communication about the responsibility of all parties to each other. IMO, it is healthy and useful for all concerned. It will be good for management to understand they need our trust and support. It's good for us to understand that talent requires renumeration and that great option deals are still expected and required.

Let us hope that we can find a Buffet Balance! Enormous respect from shareholders for management AND obvious respect from management for shareholders. Things change as companies mature. Let us hope that this conversation is part of that maturing on all sides.