Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: tkc

By: DigSpace in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 22 Apr 12 8:21 PM | 107 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 07416 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 07415 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Collins an SKK point to percentage of net worth as sufficient for skin in the game arguments. I never doubted that essentially everything SKS has comes from Wave. But the things he has do not entail risk. Presumably (or so the argument goes) he is highly skilled, so if Wave fizzled he would find work elsewhere. His options would be worthless, but they do not represent the personal taking on of risk. He has simply been assigned an asset that has risks. Being assigned an asset that has risk and actually buying a risky investment with after tax salary dollars are wildly different things. There is a reason there is something called Form 4. Form 4 has been accurate, their fig leaf not so much.

They don't understand the different forms risk takes and they don't understand the place of Form 4 in equity investment.

To 'blame it on mobile' is a farce. Its a decade of priorities and iEORR. I welcome a shake-up.


 - - - - -
View Replies (3) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: tkc
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Sun, 22 Apr 12 8:08 PM 		Msg. 07415 of 54959

Now that's a cool conversation.

The investment in mobile and sales made sense.

It is the framing of the funding around the investment which causes the difference of opinion.

Alignment of interests isn't a trivial matter. It informs the conversation. Companies tout it when they create compensation packages for executives which align their interests with those of shareholders. It is important.

But Wave just will not listen to this particular complaint. They always find excuses to avoid taking the same risks as the shareholders. And so long as they do so, they are vulnerable to the charges levelled at them: of being insensitive to dilution; of being indisciplined about costs; of preferring the Sprague family over other employees (witness the end of WXP); of being careless about the timeline; of running an unsafe harbour to mislead investors.

This is the tin ear. It seems like the insiders are reluctant to invest in their own decisions. And that choice, thus far, has generally appeared to be a good one. That is not a happy alignment.

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next