Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 12:08 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 9 hrs 22 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Skullcandy, Inc. (SKUL) Message Board

  • michaelsistowicz michaelsistowicz May 15, 2013 11:49 AM Flag

    A history lesson on SKUL insider stock ownership,

    Having followed this stock since the IPO and being heavily leveraged in this name, I have done extensive research in the SKUL name. I am going to relay some thoughts, info I have gathered regarding it's stock ownership.

    Disclaimer: these are thoughts off the top of my head, I may be off some in my numbers and time frames etc. but in general it is a good picture of what occurred.

    I'll try to explain by individual with a little history on them:

    Alden - Started one of his first company's with a ski binding system he patented. Sold it, bought it back and sold it again. Then came up with a switching device (phone to music and back) while skiing. This then led to the formation of SKUL. Alden has about 7,000,000 shares or 25% of the company.

    Kearl - Chairman of the Board. Gave Alden seed money for Skullcandy in its early years (back in 2002/2003). In return was granted shares. When the company went public, Kearl converted his shares and sold them after the lock up. He (in my opinion) should not be on the board as he has no vested interest in the company. He is a venture capitalist and this and his retainer is part of his MO.

    Andrus (Former CEO). Worked for the company with NO PAY and lived in his parents house for 3 years. In return he was granted stock in the company. He still holds 1.3 million shares or 5 % of the company.

    Rest of the board - Various guys that are in the active lifestyle product's arena and on other boards. They hold token sums of stock (mostly grants and options).

    Wescoat / Darling - CFO/CEO these guys are starting from scratch. They have been awarded small grants and options and HAVE PURCHASED direct shares on their own. There is NO requirement for them to do so.
    This is a great thing as they are not part of the original "clan". They have a vested interest to build the company as their pay / wealth was not created via the IPO.

    My quick summary....

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Thanks- good info

    • I may add that Director Warnock got 1.15 million shares at IPO and has proceeded to sell all but 300,000 (I'm not sure if those have not vested?). He is another on the board that has not bought direct shares (other Chairman Kearl). Both have no vested interest in the company. Olivet and Collier got very small grants (less then 10,000 shares) neither ave sold. Olivet purchased 7,500 shares at IPO at 20 bucks on his own. Again though they have no real vested interest in the company besides their positions on the board / benefits and retainers / options. I'm not clear on their tie in with the IPO / initial involvement with Alden in the early years at start-up.

 
SKUL
7.10-0.09(-1.25%)Jul 28 4:00 PMEDT

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.