Hi tkc,
I think it is a curious coincidence that there seems to be a correspondence between those who seem most curious about the financial picture and those who are most concerned about wanton expenditure.
In my mind, I see shares pinging out the door as Wave invests in tangential opportunities. Unfortunately, for me they have form as somewhat less cautious investors when going off the main path - witness WXP and iShopHere.
As neither the board nor the managers are heavily invested in equity, they don't feel the dilution quite the way investors do. Options provide upside opportunity, but little downside risk.
This is the underlying basis of the point which arose in the CC. For Steven, any defence of board members and management failing to invest is good enough. Inside information is a pretty stale effort at an excuse, but it will suffice for him apparently. But the sum total of their lack of exposure is that I don't feel the downside risks for shareholders and the management/board are aligned.
Being careless about the Sprague family's compensation fits that observation fairly neatly. Who cares about dilution if you replace your options in larger volumes and at lower prices next year. "The Spragues are our friends. Let's give them the chance to do what they wish. We have no real exposure to risk, but if old Pete knocks the ball out of the park, that's cool for all of us." - that's what they seem to say.
Who really cares about the shareholders' interests in that conversation?
Maybe people who are numbers-based are less apt to associate themselves with family ties. It is fairly blindingly clear from a financial perspective that the interests of the company, those of its shareholders and those of the family are discrete. Maybe this is territory that is unfamiliar for other folks.
| 