SAPE needs to align itself with a strong strategy shop like a Boston Consulting Group or a Mercer, etc. Those firms suffer from the opposite problems of SAPE, they can develop a digital strategy for clients but they cannot write a line of code or implement the strategy. SAPE is weak on strategy development but excels at digital implementation. An acquisition by one of those firms now comes at 3X discount over any multiple they would have had to pay just a year ago. Though I sold half my SAPE a year ago I am still long on these guys though I cringed when I read about the "India" strategy.
Regards to all colleagues!
Han Ruo Lung
Jerry and Stu's compensation is derived *solely* from stock price - they don't have options granted, they own 1/2 the company.
Which, of course, you knew - you chose to make fun of them anyway, even though they have lost somewhere around 80% of their wealth with the stock crashing, too.
And, no - the information is based on what the company files with the SEC. Tax returns are not public information, I don't believe...
It is impressive if their take is only 51K each.
I would guess that doesn't tell the whole story though......expense accounts or other perks.
In any event, two CEO's is a bad, bad idea that has never worked anywhere in the long run. It's only a matter of time before Sapient and it's board address this problem.......most likely by selling out.
Frankly it's not the CEO's fault that consulting firms have never been good long term investments. Other than companies which can establish long term contracts (IBM, EDS for example), it's a crummy business. It's too easy for clients to give you the boot, and with the complexities and politics of most significant tech implementations, there are no shortage of folks at the client that resent the consultants, undermine the consultants, etc.
Many thanks for the info. Is this info in any way based on IRS returns? But this is impressive, to learn that Messrs. Greenberg and Moore live in poverty, making half of what theirs VB coders do, with no other compensation for their joint CEOship but the honors and admiration? What a heroic example! A truly Roman spirit! My heart bleeds. Should we organize a charity drive here on this board? Anyone here pledging to buy 1,000@$100? @$30? @$10? Hmmm.
<<If co-CEO's have only taken 51K in salary and have not granted themselves other valuable perks
like options or excessive pension packages, I think that's honorable.....but I highly doubt that's
the case. In any event I don't know for certain. Can anybody confirm this ?>>
Well, in my humble opinion, anybody who doesn't know how to find out the salary of the CEO (co- or otherwise) of a publicly traded American company has no bloody business making claims about that salary. It's public information, for chrissake!
Try this URL:
and search for the table entitled "SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE" (it's on page 4). According to this table, both J. Stuart Moore and Jerry Greenberg earned $50,000 in salary, $0 in bonus and $1,094 in "All Other Compensation"; which, according to footnote 3, represent "the Company's matching contributions under the Company's 401(k) Plan." Not exactly what I'd call 'other valuable perks'.
Regarding stock options: Footnote 2 to this table states "Messrs. Greenberg and Moore do not participate in the Company's stock plans, due to the significant equity ownership that each of them holds in the Company. The Company has never granted any stock appreciation rights." The same text shows up as footnote 4 to the table "OPTION GRANTS IN LAST FISCAL YEAR", and footnote 3 to the table "AGGREGATED OPTION EXERCISES IN LAST FISCAL YEAR AND FISCAL YEAR-END OPTION VALUES".
For the uninitiated, that URL is SAPE's 2001 Form 10-K/A on the Securities and Exchange Commission website. (You might have heard of the SEC, perhaps?)
Actually, I think the diff between us is that you get your jollies acting high and mighty, calling people clowns and fools. I do not, I only call you out for being such an arrogant prick.
Keep your eye on the ball, slick...
I have really only been around while the company has not been doing well.
The difference between you and me is that you look to the stock price to tell you if the company is doing well, I look to the business fundamentals and outlook.....both of which have been deteriorating for a long time, and particularly in light of the stupid valuation that Sapient was given.
Anyway, not interested in much more personal bickering......but if you give me some good bait I might bite....