Robert - thanks for sparing me the time to figure
out a response to #4117. That's the nail on the
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.
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
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.
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>.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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.
As a happy employee, and one
who is pleased with the direction and leadership at
CIBER, it would serve no purpose to get involved in the
morale discussion for as you point out at every company
there are happy and unhappy campers. I did want to
point out to you that the ASP arm of CIBER is Agilera