So---the honor of comparing you to a 'dilla didn't outweigh the "incivility" of my characterization of some of your comments as idiotic? You would definitely benefit from the "thicker skin" of the 'dilla. Sorry if I offended your sensitive nature, softy.
Although I don't disagree with you about the excesses of corporate executive compensation (including options), the Rummell package is ancient history and far from atypical---yet you revel in droning on about it. It's a done deal---what's your remedy for correcting this egregious affront to SJP shareholders? Short of time-travel it doesn't appear you have one, so give it a rest.
Mr. Stockman: you are right that I am not in Mr. Canseco's league, particularly in investing. He has done extraordinarily well over the past few years, well beyond the markets and with much less overall risk.
As for comparing me to a 'dilla, that's sort of like comparing a stockman to a cockroach-- we don't deserve the honor. I'll take that back if your "stock" eats grass and has at least four legs-- those foreign birds don't count. One thing you are completely wrong about: I bought this stock back before Mr. Runnell was even a gleam in the eye of the DuPont Trust, and you were studying for your learner's permit. However, any idiot can buy and hold, as I have done.
I do think that our board of directors should be much more cautious about granting stock options, particularly when it involves more than 1% of the company. I think it was an article in Fortune which re-examined MSFT's earnings for 1999: if MSFT had characterized options the way the Mr. Buffett and the accountants propose, it would have gone from a $4.5 billion profit to a $17 billion loss.
I also believe that long-term holders of JOE, like me, would benefit much more if Mr. Runnell's compensation were in cash, not options, since it would depress earnings, thus depressing the price, and allowing me to buy a greater percentage of the company. It would also present a truer picture of the company's finances. As it is, with those options, my percentage of the company is decreasing.
I also think that incivlity on boards depresses the price of stocks. When prospective purchasers feel like they have to endure venom to follow what other holders think about the stock, ceteris paribus, they would buy a stock with a more civil board.
But hey, this is cyberspace, much more dangerous than crossing 30A during new moon... and let me tell you about that someday, assuming I don't have to cross the road to do it...
JOE has been bashed by an "investor" who touts Calton Inc. (AMEX, CN) a pennystock that sold their 'Homes' subsidiary (most of the value of the Company) to Centex Real Estate Corp. (NYSE, CTX) at the end of 1998, and tries to offset some of its substantial losses by offering "consulting services" to Centex. The CEO owns at least 30% of Calton, which has eight (8) employees, right Ken?
I'm sure his agenda has our best interests in mind.
Does anyone have an idea of what Warren Buffett or Charlie Munger would say about JOE's stock option and stock buyback plans? Would they be for or against it? Can anyone name a better long term investor, or a more honest CEO of a Fortune 500 Company than Buffett? Do these questions count as bashing? And what does the latest 8-K filing mean?