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


  • abigchocoholic abigchocoholic May 5, 2012 12:58 AM Flag

    Another losing quarter

    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.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 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

      • 1 Reply to verybadmisteak
      • 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?

    • 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.

    • Seems counter-intuitive. And by the way some corporate Boards are passive, some not. I've been on both. Your not getting the new dynamic here. Am I actually hearing you will vote against the 2 new Board members? Instead vote for a litigious individuals picks. Are you serious? If thats the case stocks a doughnut, I assure you that. I asked you before if you knew who Sam Zell was? I got no response so I assume the answer is NO.

    • I'll give you guys one thing--you are new--and clueless.

      This business came out of bankruptcy with no just cash, assets and legacy lawsuits. There was no product, no fixed expenses, no employee force, no nothing.
      It was essentially an investment fund.

      When management is in control of an investment fund it is inexcusable to take the investment fund from $1 to .30. The stock market has hit new highs the two years this investment fund manager has lost 70%.

    • douchbags-scumbags-the mamagement members that who they are-big jokes!! :-(

    • Am I actually hearing you will vote against the 2 new Board members? Instead vote for a litigious individuals picks.
      Absolutely, I'm voting against the CEO and current board. Why? It's real simple.

      1. They have trashed the stock price by 70%

      2. They have grossly overcompensated themselves by 4 fold.

      3. They are openly attempting to strong arm the largest shareholders---to the extent they won't let the largest shareholders form a group to nominate directors resulting in a lawsuit. Why kind of management fights the very people they work for?

      I have yet to hear any reason whatsoever to keep current management or their choice of directors. This company is an investment fund. They've had 2 years to prove themselves and we have a stock market to compare their performance to. What's their grade? They don't get a B, they don't get a C, they don't even get a D. They get an F. $1 to thirty cents in 2 years as management pays itself millions in stockholder equity. Anything worse than what these guys have achieved would be called a felony.

    • Signature never stood a chance on its own. Neither did New World. Only when they combined their votes/shares were they able to have a chance at winning over the OEC/Ranch plan. And keep in mind that while members of the OEC were barred from buying shares from 7/2008, other third parties like Signature had much longer to invest, and often at a lower cost basis.

      One of my biggest objections to Signature's plan was that it wouldn't generate enough cash to use up the NOLs. And given the current situation, it would have been better to have liquidated all the loans and assets, and taken all that cash and put it in an interest-earning CD or savings account.

      The reality is that it's still too early to determine if Signature's investments were wise ones. Ranch wanted 7 years, I'll give Signature at least half that with their business model. But there's been enough time, too many resignations, too much funny business with the largest shareholders, and an overall bullying and wasteful mentality---I mean, how much was spent fighting the OEC's attorneys fees? The list goes on and on...

      This management team is going to face the firing squad at the shareholders' meeting. I don't live too far away, maybe I'll stop by and ask a few questions myself..

    • This management team is going to face the firing squad at the shareholders' meeting. I don't live too far away, maybe I'll stop by and ask a few questions myself..
      I wouldn't expect the CEO to answer any questions given that they shout down and hang up the phone on their own board members. But it would be fun to see a bunch of angry shareholders grill the CEO over his performance and compensation in front of the existing board. Just for example, let's see the compensation package comparables that the board used to approve this CEO's compensation. What CEO in today's environment has a comp package that's not tied to stock price and performance results?

      This is all coming down to a vote on Mac's 3 directors. If he wins, the 3 board seats, management is gone within a month. And management's remaining directors will undoubtedly resign too. Then, the only thing left will be the lawsuits against management to undo their self dealings.

      It would be sweet justice for the CEO to be on the street reading this board to find out what's going on with the company he used to run.

    • to create at .25c with the pref. Was an easy sale at $1 although I only got .82, when the plan was effective and everyone got new shares, always goes down. You can vote against the newco Board if you want, not sure there's enough shares to vote anyone out, but you miss the whole dynamic now, why now is the time to buy, not cause more legal wrangling and misery. Mac has caused millions of losses for the shareholder base. There so many reason why you can't file as a group, but that should have been obvious to most. Apparently not. You should sell and be gone its killing you.

    • How much did Signature waste fighting the OEC fees, when the cheaper and more sensical solution would be to have paid them and moved on? Forget that without an equity committee, the TOPrS would have taken control of this estate and liquidated it---at the very least even if Signature management picks takes everything from the coffers, at least the empty shell and $700M+ in NOLs have some value and appeal.

      To lose money two years into this when Signature was basically given a lump sum of cash and other assets with near-unlimited tax-free growth, at a time when everything else is going up, is a failure no matter how much lipstick you may want to apply. On that fact alone, why would any shareholder want to continue to stay the course???

    • View More Messages