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

Scott's Liquid Gold Inc. Message Board

  • abalone657 abalone657 Feb 7, 2013 2:37 PM Flag

    Stabosz is right, but...

    Ten out of any ten truly independent fiduciaries and/or corporate governance authorities would advise for radical change here and likely some form of liquidation. This situation is an egregious and text book entrenchment story. It's a disgusting statement of how money can influence us as humans. A no-brainer would be to sell these product lines to an existing larger brand platform - a P&G or the like with economies of scale. If SLGD had one private owner or was managed by a trustee of an estate these products would have been sold long ago as they just don't belong as stand-alone - they definitely should not be stand alone within an expensive public vehicle. I would bet a tidy sum that SLGD has turned down many offers over the years for their product lines. Doing the pro formas on such sales and subtracting out the years of needless operational expense, corporate overhead and excessive executive compensation would yield sums that would make today's shareholders cringe loudly. What I want to know is what are those brand's worth today in the open market. I'd want to see the liquidation analysis on SLGD. Brand sales + cash - liabilities and wind down expense = liquidating NAV. It is likely that executives have expensive severance agreements in the case of liquidation. And the 60+ employees would not be a cheap lay-off either; nor their new leasebacks which would need to be paid off. Wind down expenses add up...D&O insurance for the executives...potential reserves for future product liability issues, etc. For those of you who didn't see it in yesterday's WSJ there was a related article: "A Tougher Stand on CEOs With Bad Returns." But the article the SLGD BoD and shareholder base really needs to read, the one that succinctly describes the problem at SLGD is Ben Graham's Forbes Magazine article "Should Rich but Loosing Corporations Be Liquidated?" It not only applauds Mr. Stabosz's efforts - it calls those efforts the duty of all shareholders. For those who do not know Graham, he is the famous teacher and mentor of Warren Buffett and founder of Fundamental Analysis which is the backbone of financial analytical process. I have a feeling that if Mr. Stabosz keeps up the good work and IF OTHER SHAREHOLDERS PUBLICLY JOIN SUIT then this fight will finally end with shareholders prevailing. Get personal. Use the names of the BoD members generously. Public embarrassment is the name of the game here. Keep talking to the Denver newspapers especially. This is activist investing 101 and is unfortunately the protocol required in this game. This management should be ashamed and embarrassed by there actions, lack of actions, ineptitudes and despicable waste of shareholder funds. Hold the accountable LOUDLY! Good luck!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • The Current Board is shamelessly beholden for their $15,000 per year. It's time for a Shareholder's derivative suit citing the Board's total lack of fiduciary responsibility, make that total betrayal of fiduciary responsibility.... it is my understanding that such a suit charges individual members of this feckless Board Personally.... Specifically, each $15,000 per year bought and paid for Board member can lose their homes...

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

1.28+0.03(+2.40%)Feb 5 12:27 PMEST