The $1.1 million increase in loss from continuing operations is primarily related to a $1.9 million increase in compensation expense primarily associated with NABCO, which was not included in our results of operations in the prior period in 2011, and the conversion from an external to an internal management structure, whereby employee expenses are now included in compensation rather than management fees included in selling, general, and administrative expense;
In other words even though management keeps losing money they are paying themselves up the ying yang---not because they are achieving results but because they hand picked the board that agreed to their compensation packages in exchange for high paying board positions. Despite the horrible results none of them are offering their resignations.
And the bottom line is that it is all completely unnecessary. This was a company with no business, just assets for sale and cash and NOLs. Any group of junior college finance students could run this thing to profitability unlike current management and they would have done so for 100k a year instead of millions.
Now, the company's major shareholders are trying to oust management and, of all things, management is resisting. Management is claiming that because the major shareholders want to vote in their own directors it constitutes a take over. How's that for a new one? If shareholders want to vote for their choice of directors they can't because it's a take over--at least according to management.
Before you bore this message board with more of your uninformed rants, please read the various disclosures and filings so your tirades can at least be rooted in some level of understanding/truth. You can legitimately complain about the direction of the company and/or the management thereof, have at it. What should be made clear however is: the large majority of the expenses that this company has incurred/will incur in the future are legacy in form and would have been incurred by anyone who ultimately took over the management of the company. To represent this entity as simply a collection of assets (largely cash and NOL's) is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. This business has significant legacy issues, including litigation (which did not go away in the bankruptcy) that must be dealt with at considerable costs (both manpower and monetary), it also has a legacy mortgage portfolio that has to be managed for the benefit of the stockholders, and it had a massive amount of accounting and tax issues to be dealt with in order to get back in compliance with the SEC (which benefits all stockholders). Your representation that this company could be run on a shoestring budget with a couple of undergraduates manning the ship waiting for the phone to ring with the next Facebook opportunity while burning a few hundred thousand dollars per year is absurd. Let's deal with facts and reality. Objective discourse always welcome.
"This business has significant legacy issues, including litigation (which did not go away in the bankruptcy) that must be dealt with at considerable costs (both manpower and monetary), it also has a legacy mortgage portfolio that has to be managed for the benefit of the stockholders, and it had a massive amount of accounting and tax issues to be dealt with in order to get back in compliance with the SEC (which benefits all stockholders). "
I'm pretty familiar with Signature and what they inherited, and I'm certain that many of these "legacy" issues such as the lawsuits could have been wrapped up over the past two years. The sad reality is that Signature's management team has totally dropped the ball. They have wasted millions upon millions of dollars, their business plan does not appear capable of generating the sort of profits that will use up the NOLs, and worst of all, management has alienated many people throughout this process.
Signature operates with almost a bully mentality, threatening legal recourse against those who question them, and I've seen more than once instance where Signature has cut off its nose to spite its face---most notably by refusing to pay the OEC attorney fees, only to be humiliated a year later when the fee examinations got in front of the judge. How much shareholder money was wasted to try to save a fraction of what the OEC attorneys requested?
The good news is that there's an excellent chance at this next shareholders' meeting that the current board will be replaced, and with it the management team too. The shareholders have waited far too long for a competent group to run this company. Gordon and Depillo didn't care about the shareholders and it appears that Signature doesn't either. I know how I'll be voting with my shares in the very near future, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of other shareholders will be voting the same way.
Ah, finally, someone defending management. Ok, but put some facts in front of your conclusions.
Simply stated, $1 to .30 cents under this management. That's called a fact. Deal with it. You can't blame it on the legacy lawsuits or the legacy accounting issues because, by definition, those existed and were disclosed and factored into the $1 price. That's what legacy means.
No, we went from $1 to .30 cents because of what this management team has done. Feel free to discuss the entire board's resignation. Feel free to discuss the lawsuits by the major shareholders alleging management illegally gave itself millions. Feel free to discuss the compensation packages the board took and gave the CEO. Feel free to discuss the President quitting. Feel free to discuss management threatening a poison pill if the major shareholders vote out their board. Feel free to discuss the ROI on this management team's investments after 2 years. (Hint: A monkey throwing darts at the wall street journal stock page could have done 10 times better.)
I'm open to objective. Objectively tell me how this company went from $1 to thirty cents under this management's reign and why management shouldn't be tossed out on their ears. (Remember you have to start at $1 with the legacy accounting and lawsuit issues.)
how could it be otherwise? We still have no clue who Big Mac put up, and with a Board member buying, hmm...he saw the Mac names cause he's the nominating committee, but yet thought they weren't worthy. So, interesting dynamic playing here. Stay tuned..
its time you left the party. The Board is reduced to 5 with 2 amazing additions if you haven't read all the releases. Why do you want Mac back, please read the bio's of the 2 additions.
This thing will never be profitable despite your saying anyone with a finance 101 degree could do, without new business's integrated in here. Choco, you are divisive and should move on, I suggest buying Facebook
Not divisive at all. I'm a shareholder on the side of shareholders. I'm against management trying to steal my money.
How about you? Are you a spouse of a manager? That's what you sound like. You are all conclusions and no facts or argument. Answer the simple questions. Try making some simple arguments supporting your position. Conclusions without facts and supporting arguments are worthless. Saying "two amazing additions" is a joke. They are both losing money. Why would a company that needs profit to offset NOLs buy companies losing money? Why is the stock at .30? Why under this management has the stock gone from $1 down to .30? Why is this company losing money when it started with all asets? How can any company start with cash, assets and NOLs and lose money? Why are the managers paying themselves millions? Who authorized those compensation packages? Why are the major shareholders suing management? Why is management fighting with its own shareholders?
ok, I'm done correcting your story telling. You've proven yourself unworthy.
It'll come down to a vote. I'm thinking Mac's side has about 20 million votes on their side. I'm thinking management has about 15 million (with 1/4 of that they gave to themselves rather than bought it on the open market)--oh and plus your 30,000 shares. We'll see which side carries the day.
Nope. I'm just a shareholder. Have been for years and I enjoy the business drama. Lots of it in this company's history. Everything I know is based on public disclosure.
And I still acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong. I've been waiting for someone to defend management. Gustero used to do it but I think even he's given up. Pretty tough to defend million dollar comp packages as the company loses money. At the same time the stock market has made 30%, this company has lost 20%. That's why I say a monkey and dart board could have performed 10 times better than this multi million dollar a year management team.
And I've been very critical of Mac and kingstown too. It's their money, it's their company there's no excuse for letting what happened happen. Kingstown was on the board. Mac should have been on the board. Kingstown had inside knowledge. Even if they couldn't get a majority vote against management's plans and comp packages they could have gone on record that they thought the actions violated fiduciary duties. Instead, kingstown resigned like little babies who couldn't handle controversy. It was an unbelievably arrogant and ignorant thing to do. Now, they are on the outside like me except for they are spending 10s of thousands or more suing their own company.
why we are where we are. Personally, I don't care..I am done with you guys..and will await the vote. Everyone here is clearly tooooooo gone too see the forest through the trees. If I am wrong its 30c down and 1-$2 up. Versus a choco et al, vision at $1 which had no shot. if he/she is patient probably works but no todays youth can't handle adversity..so bye bye. I will not answer or be back again bye
Board members don't run a company management does. Board members meet a couple of times a year to decide policy. Who cares if there's two new board members. How is that going to change anything? The CEO is still there, the same one who's been running this company for 2 years, the same one who's run the stock down to .30, the same one who is getting sued by the major shareholders.
This management team has been in place 2 years. They were handed a gift--money, assets and NOLs. And they have turned that gift into their own personal piggy banks paying themselves million dollar compensation packages. What CEO gets paid a million a year to run a 70 million dollar cash asset company? Answer? None. The CEO should be making 1/4 that with incentives if the stock moves (up not down).
And salaries aside, what has management accomplished? The stock price speaks for itself. Any management team with any self respect would be tendering resignations in light of the performance and lawsuits by the major shareholders.
The definition of stupid is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result.
he put back issue was out there for years that much I can agree with you
You still can't answer the simple question. If the put backs were out there for years while the stock climbed to $1 then how come when the put backs went away the stock didn't go to $3 rather it went to .30?
There's a real simple bottom line. This management team was handed cake. 70 million in assets. 900 million in NOLs. Near impossible to lose value. Supposedly the only issue was how much they could make off the 70 million to start utilizing the NOLs. Now, how much of the NOLs has this management team been able to use after 2 years? 2 years of 70 million to invest what do they have to show for it?
Easy answer. They've lost about 10 million of the 70 million. If that's the team you want to vote for go for it. They'll gladly take your money while they pay themselves millions.
that you deny the fact that distressed guys were involved, or that possibly millions of shares were sold into the retail community. I simply don't see Macs 20 millions shares being of any value vs 100 mm of stock held elsewhere. I will keep an open mind and see who his 3 are, but somehow you deny the fact that SZ has more clout than most. You must have gotten beaten up pretty bad for all your bitterness. Never exceed position limits no matter how tempting. Bye