Wed, Mar 4, 2015, 8:04 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 26 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Ciber, Inc. Message Board

  • jmhpolar jmhpolar Mar 24, 2000 10:46 AM Flag

    Management

    Robert - thanks for sparing me the time to figure
    out a response to #4117. That's the nail on the
    head.
    Stockemist - who knows if this company's a "good investment"
    or not? Can you see the future? I'll give you the
    benefit of the doubt and simply concede: Ciber's a GREAT
    investment. But your comments on company management show
    without a doubt you have no idea what you're talking
    about concerning management and company vision. That,
    or you're currently working in Ciber PR.
    "Fundamentals" like bottom line more important than employee
    morale? Maybe so, but the fact remains Ciber's lost close
    to 20% of its staff in the last 1.5 years. It is a
    FACT that corporate processed an average of 100
    terminations per week for much of the first quarter. I don't
    call that growth. Choose to ignore these types of
    comments at your own risk. I wish you and everyone else on
    this board good luck, I know it's possible to make
    money with this stock, but I can't sit around and read
    comments like these without saying something. Hope this
    outburst doesn't ruffle too many feathers, nothing
    personal to anyone.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • With no real assets and revenue/profits on the
      decline it is hard to imagine someone paying $40, but
      that sure would be nice.
      Ciber has released lots of
      press about getting into new services - does anyone
      know if they are actually doing anything
      ?

      Being an IBM Premier partner only means that you can
      get lots of business at terrible margins - History
      says that as IBM stock goes up - their vendor stocks
      go down.

    • make him hold out for more?

      It agree that
      it must be frustrating to try to move the stock up
      and not be able to attract any kind of sustained
      interest. A laggard stock certainly doesn't help CBR retain
      or attract the employees it needs either.

      So
      if you're correct about 40 as being so nice a price
      that it couldn't be rejected, is there a company out
      there (maybe like PSIX) that would pay us $40 for our
      shares. And where does the line form <grin>.

    • IMHO I think Mac is so frustrated with the stock performance this past year, he would entertain a merger only if it would fetch 40 a share. EOM

    • This may be so in most public held companiers, but in the case where one person still controls over 50% they can certainly control any outcome.

    • fiefdoms and private playgrounds, the top
      management of corporations have a fiduciary responsibility
      to their shareholders. Although shareholder's
      employees (aka CEO, CFO VP, etc.) are allowed and encourged
      to enjoy and enrich themselves, they are supposed to
      be doing it in a way that enriches the shareholders.


      If they reject buyouts that would significantly
      enrich the owners but put themselves out of a job (with
      only a golden parachute and a cushy 5 year
      non-compete/consulting contract) they will be sued...at least if the
      shareholders find out about it.

      Whereas their
      insurance may indemnify them from mistakes, I doubt it will
      protect them from deliberate malfeasance. I assume that
      they have competant legal advice and therefore know
      this.

      So yes, the will be able to get away with rejecting
      borderline takeover bids. Ones that are wildly advantageous
      to the shareholders can not be rejected out-of-hand.
      If the bidder get PO'd and makes it public, the
      offending management will have serious trouble and hurt the
      company.

    • The people in this industry like Mac S. and John
      Fain of Metro will not sell until the deal is right or
      they cannot run the company anymore.
      Looking at
      Metro's recent performance - if JF did not have a
      majority - it would be a takeover target for sure -

      Maybe some company will buy both of them and make me
      Very $$$$ HAPPY !

    • Of course I would be happy about a situation like
      that.

      FYI...Some time ago a poster came onto this board
      when the question of a buyout came up. He said that he
      had grown up nextdoor to Mac Slingerland and gone to
      school with him as a child and teenager or somesuch. He
      had also had some contact with him since he has run
      CBR. He said that Mac and other officers had built
      Ciber from the ground up and was the type of person who
      most probably would not be interested in selling. Of
      course this is hearsay, but could also be a valid point.
      Last time I looked, If I remember correctly, Mac
      Slingerland owned some 6% of CBR. If anybody stands to make a
      killing from a buyout it would be him. I think he is the
      type that might not want to sell unless he was against
      a wall. Anyway, I guess time will tell.


      regards...

    • to protect management (more than shareholders)
      from Hostile takeovers.

      Hostile usually means
      that management wouldn't accept the price and/or terms
      but the shareholders probably would, if they were
      asked. The threat of these extra shares being issued
      usually deters the Hostile offer being publisized.


      This often serves to make sure the Management doesn't
      look bad (and get sued for breaching their ficuciary
      duties) when stockholders hear about good offers that
      Management sometimes rejects.

      Managements (in
      general) can reject an offer because they think they can
      do better or get a higher offer or because the
      Golden Parachutes offerred to them are not rich enough.
      Publicly rejecting (whether that was the correct thing to
      do or not) an offer almost always upsets some
      shareholders and often ends in lawsuits, which is not good for
      the company. The Poison Pill defense puts
      company-buyers on notice that they better take good care of
      management and not go over their heads (directly to
      shareholders) if they want their offer to have a chance of ever
      getting presented to the shareholders.

      I don't
      know the specifics of CBRs plan but the way they work
      tends to be similar. They usually kick in if any group
      accumulates over a certain % of shares.

      This means all
      buyout offers are presented to Management first, not to
      the public. I'd guess that CBR Management gets
      frequent expressions of interest. Until they approve an
      actual offer, we are unlikely to hear about it.


      This is too bad, it would help the stock price, as
      well as shareholder confidence, if we at least heard
      that one company had offered $30 and another had
      offered $35 (just examples, I have no inside information
      that this happened at these prices). It would be
      easier to hold on when CBR stock is struggling at $21 if
      we knew about this, don't you think?

    • MMWW and their situation. They are a mirror of
      CBR in approximately 4 months. It is like getting a
      glimpse of the future. Their buyout had NOTHING to do
      with the S&P PE or the average valuation of anything.


      It had everthing to do with a company that wanted
      what they had, didn't want to spend lots of time to
      try to get there. PSIX determined that they could buy
      what they needed at a price that made MMWW
      shareholders overjoyed...At approximately a 300% premium to
      the market share price. Take it from me, I was a
      shareholder, it was great.

      I would not be surprised if
      CBR has already been approached by a number of
      companies looking for IT and NET consultants to attach to
      their existing assets. I know of an Indian company that
      is looking in the US to do just that. I would guess
      that PSIX tried CBR too. Any logical management would
      have tried to make the best deal and would have
      approached all the leading players in the field, which would
      include CBR.

      I get the impression from the IPO
      announcement that CBR Management thinks that they have
      discovered the solution to their boring stock price with the
      IPO/carveout and subsequent spinoff. They may realize the
      temporary nature of the stock price goose-up that this will
      cause because they have already positioned themselves
      to IPO the new joint venture with Verio (whatever
      its name is <ggg>). But sooner or later they
      will run out of divisions or subs to sell. Then what?
      At the very least, I can hope that the share price
      has been moved up and they can sell out at a higher
      price. Regretably, once you've sold most of your assets,
      your stock price isn't necessarily going to be as high
      as when people were buying to get a piec of the
      spinoff (check COMS chart and MMWW to see how they both
      crashed, just BEFORE each of their IPOs).

      All of
      these laudable moves will occur in the unpredictable
      future. The unpredictability is the only good reason to
      take $40 now rather than hope for a possible $50 or
      even a $70 share value in the future. All you have to
      do is ajust for the time-value-of money and then
      adjust for the probability that this stock price rise
      will not happen and even $35 next month looks
      wonderful.

      But then, you probably already agree with me. I am
      sure others do not. I would much rather read contrary
      arguements than the usual spam on this board.

    • for your thoughts. My feathers are not easily
      ruffled and I appreciate conficting ideas as long as they
      are thoughts and not reactions. However, I have
      watched this company for quite some time now and have
      seen this staffing, morale issue come up several
      times. Yes, bottom line is more important than
      "percieved" moral. The fact is that if the company is
      achieving its financial goals, it is doing well. If moral
      reaches a point it is a detriment to the bottom line,
      then steps need to be taken. However, with respect to
      CBR, they are in the process of a changeover of
      skillsets. In addition to layoffs and terminations there has
      been hiring as well. Management expects at 30-35%
      turnover rate in employees to facilitate this demographic
      change in skillsets towards the new e-business. This was
      addressed in the last conference call. I'm sure many
      employees getting layed off are not happy. However, for
      every disgruntled employee who posts on this board,
      there is a happy one to respond. I don't work for CBR
      at all, however I am a stockholder. Sometimes
      companies have to downsize to remain profitable, that is a
      fact of business. However, if earnings continue to
      grow at an excess of 20%/year this is good.
      Furthermore, I am now interested in Agilent and the ASP
      business. The ASP market is projected to grow by
      billions/year for the next several years. CBR is well
      positioned to capture a significant portion of this market
      share. The bottom line is that they are moving in the
      right direction and that ERP software is a necessary
      and growing portion of our economy. As things get
      more interdependant and B2B plays a more central role,
      then outsourcing and consultancy will become more
      prominant as well. One just has to take a longer term view.
      This is all IMHO and I would like your response to
      these ideas if you don't mind. Best of luck to you and
      others on this board.

      regards...

 
CBR
4.000.00(0.00%)Mar 3 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Autohome Inc.
NYSETue, Mar 3, 2015 4:01 PM EST
Veeva Systems Inc.
NYSETue, Mar 3, 2015 4:04 PM EST
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
NYSETue, Mar 3, 2015 4:04 PM EST