Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 2:21 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 9 mins

Recent

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

BIOLASE, Inc. Message Board

  • billberggren billberggren Jul 4, 2005 10:47 PM Flag

    BLTI what we can do

    Did I read somewhere the old CEO and CFO of the period in question have left the company. If this is true can we go after them, them take their houses, if they were involved in sinsiter reporting. I guess we will wait and see, but it is time for investors not to sit back and take it anymore and start going after those that cause the problem.

    BTW, all stock options are ownership theft. There is no correlation between management holding stock in the company with performance. It is the CEOs job to increase earnings, assets, and revenues per share.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Well GSB, we two aren't going to solve what is "wrong" with the world, nor are we going to find a better way. Now, i don't know that most businesses get started with one person. Many are a combination of people, and their backers. Something like 90% fail in the first 2 years if i recall correctly.

      That written, of all the businesses you know, how many were started by their current ceo? Not the small professional businesses. I know they make up a large majority of business in America, but i mean the duPonts, the ibms, the gms, the biolases, even the fords. The current ceo of f didn't start the business, his great grandfather, or something like that, did.

      Whatever, those are the business where ceo pay has gotten way, way out of line. I'd like to be able to compare how the original founder of the business paid his/her workers in relation to him/herself with the way their successors do theirs. The smaller self-owned businesses, they are not the "problem."

      Gates and allen started msft, i don't know where along the way balmer came in, from the beginning or later on. Gates and allen, their fortune seed was planted when they first started up, all those shares. I don't even know what they get paid now, but they made a lot of millionaires out of their employees as well during the first few years of being public. I'd also like to run a comparison of their first few years in business vs now, senior management compensation vs worker compensation, as a start to see if after years of success maybe original managements still compare "better" to succession managements.

      As for grant, i can think of at least a million people who'd take the job right now. You think only senior management works hard, long hours in corporate America? You should take a sabbatical and go work a bit in a middle management position, even a worker bee position, and you'll see how they're all working those extra hours and days.

      $30 an hour, when you break it down the same way as you do for grant, that would be a dream come true to many of them. Seeing your family, also a dream come true. I think grant, even when you put plug in all his hours, makes a bit more than $30 an hour, unless he's working 24 hours a day those 7 days a week. I am sure grant knew pretty well into what he was walking. The challenge, and the power, that's probably what made it all worthwhile, moreso than the promise of wealth.

      That simply brings me back to the question of the stock options. A reasonable grant, no problem for me. Taking away the ownership of the company from me, the shareholder, no way. I think it was you who came up with how much of the company shares they would own if all the options were exercisable and exercised. What was it, something like 19%? Do you believe that is a reasonable figure simply off option grants? I sure don't. Even 1/2 that figure seems excessive to me, coming simply off option grants.

      In turn you owe your success to your workers and your customers, most of whom are probably worker bees. Brains aren't an exclusive commodity. If you hadn't thought of your business idea somebody else would have sooner or later. Oft it's simply a matter of timing. I know that's what worked for me, being in the right place at the right time, not having more brain power than the other guy.

      Regards

    • rivvir

      most businesses began with one person, making one thing, and selling it to someone. That person became the CEO.
      Steve Jobs
      Bill Gates
      Michael Dell come immediately to mind.

      I'm sure that people like Billbergern would would love to change places with them in their current CEO positions.

      My suggestion is to invent something, then find someone to sell it to, then change the way the entire world lives and works.

      Then he can talk about CEO's being paid too much.

      As for this company. I am sure that Robert Grant had no idea what he was walking into. I am also reasonably sure that almost no one would trade places with him at this point in time. He probably hasn't seen nearly enough of his family, probably is working for less than $30 per hour at his current salary and time requirements (working all day every day (7), likely) and as is going to deserve every penny of the stock options if he makes this compnay a success. He probably won't have much to show for his time, if the company fails, as well. I doubt he is socking it away right and left with a family trying to live in SoCal with what his yearly salary is.

      They deserve it.

      What they don't deserve is to get options granted at a lower rate when the stock falls, or to "reset" the options that they were granted before.

      All IMO

    • "The people who I guess you consider as doing the real "work" wouldn't even have jobs if it weren't for the CEO's of this and other countries. There would be nothing for the workers to do."

      GSB, what job would a ceo have if he didn't have workers, in this and other countries? Maybe you change that to, "There would be nothing for the CEO to do." In truth, you need both to allow a company to function.

      Maybe you're thinking robots can do a worker's job. Then maybe you have to think a computer can do a ceo's job.

      Aside, interesting little discussion on cnbc just a few moments ago. How the average worker bee's hourly pay over the past, i think it was 13 months, has not reached the level of inflation. Think you can say that for the average ceo?

    • Congress wrote those laws probably by lobbiests from the CEOs themselves. Also, even with the caps, it would be unlikely the CEO could do anything else, they don't work basically.
      ================================================
      classic billberggren

      bill, these guys "work" is being responsible for creating jobs, making a market for their goods and services, seeing and planning for the future. Without the vision and WORK of these CEO's many if not all of these jobs that all the other people are doing, who would be ahppy to be the CEO at lower rates, would not even exist in the first place. The actions and "work" of the CEO is to create something out of nothing, to make the decisions that need to be made in order to keep our economy producing. The people who I guess you consider as doing the real "work" wouldn't even have jobs if it weren't for the CEO's of this and other countries. There would be nothing for the workers to do. If they were so capable of doing the hard decision making and risk taking that current CEO's do, then I suggest that capability would have propelled them far past "worker" long ago, and they would be out there creating jobs for others to go to. As I do. As Frankel does.
      The "work" that the CEO does today is to carry around the sorry asses like yourself, that complain that they don't do any work. Meanwhile they go home with the knowledge that business doesn't run itself, that the decision that they make tomorrow and next week literally means the difference if thousands and thousands of familiese will still be able to eat next month and next year.

      "DONT WORK" my ever loving ass. You sorry sack of crap have probably never once created a job in your life. Happy to take jobs all along, but not make them or give them. Am I right? If not I'll apologize.

    • "No doubt - and they would destroy it even faster."

      Yeah, Bill does tend to go overboard frequently, although he evidently doesn't recognize it. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of well qualified managers out there, who would do the job well at a considerable discount to what gets paid now.

    • "When congress reverses the cap on deductable pay then your comments would make sense."

      Mayhaps it's when realization comes through that too much is too much. An overpaid corporate officer doesn't have to get those options just because his pay's been capped at a reasonable amount. Are the caps themselves reasonable? Isn't that one of the questions you have to answer before you judge?

      If it was a fair market and the pay was low i'd agree with you IJ. I don't believe it is fair, the people in the tower put too much stock (pun partially intended) in themselves, many are simply not worth what they'd get even if they came in under the cap. The new guy at boeing came in with a pay package of $53 million according to a blurb i saw. Condit, whom i thought was a great ceo, i don't remember him getting near that. Personally, i thought he was underpaid. I never did look at what stonecipher got paid. That's the 2nd question you have to answer, have things gotten way out of hand?

      I know, free marketplace. But it's not. The ones who determine the going rate are those who benefit when it goes ever higher. They self-perpetuate the obnoxious growth.

      All that noted, i do believe in the incentive of options. Not gluttony, incentive. Some less pay which can be more than made up if the task is performed successfully. The trade-off for the salesman, less salary, more earnings through commissions for a job performed well. Don't do the job well the pay is significantly less, which is fair to the company in turn, less paid out for a job not well done.

      Last note though. Oft times it is not the fault of management when business are hit by economic cycles. A ceo can do a great job steering his company through such cycles, minimizing the effect. Nevertheless the stock price goes down because of the effects of the cycle, so the ceo gets no additional reward for doing a good job. Tough to balance these things out, but the reverse is frequently true as well. Good economic times frequently make up for poor ceo's.

      If a ceo is recognized as being a good one he'll be kept on and he'll get rewarded in the end, once the good part of the cycle comes on and the incentive pays off. Doesn't mean i have to amend the option plan though. The exercise price should stay where originally placed. He can buy stock or long term options at the lower prices the bad part of the cycle presents, if he has faith in himself and believes good economic times will make up for the bad. I don't see them amend the exercise prices higher during the good times.

      regards

    • >>Congress wrote those laws probably by lobbiests from the CEOs themselves.

      So the CEO's wrote a law capping their own salaries and then got the IRS to write the regulations that required pay to be contingent on meeting performance guidelines.

      You have quite an imagination.

      >>There are 1000s of people at GM, that would be willing to take over as CEO even at lower rates.

      No doubt - and they would destroy it even faster.

    • Congress wrote those laws probably by lobbiests from the CEOs themselves. Also, even with the caps, it would be unlikely the CEO could do anything else, they don't work basically.

      Donald Trump "never take a vaction always work." Then later he states, "I can't stand manual labor." Most of these guys are frauds.

      There are 1000s of people at GM, that would be willing to take over as CEO even at lower rates.

    • >>It would be much better to pay a CEO a salary and expect them to purchase their own options and stocks on the open market.

      Isn't that nice. Too bad the IRS capped deductable pay and basicly wrote regulations that drove the excesses of options.

      When congress reverses the cap on deductable pay then your comments would make sense.

    • bill writes, "BTW, all stock options are ownership theft. There is no correlation between management holding stock in the company with performance. It is the CEOs job to increase earnings, assets, and revenues per share."

      LOL, written like a true socialist. There is a DIRECT link between managmeent stock ownership and the sucess of a company. To claim is otherwise is naive at best and criminal at worst.

      Stock incentatives are part of the compensation of the companies executives and are in teh end just a tool. IMHO they are one of the best tools but like any tool they can be misused and over done, just as CEO can be paid too high a salary.

      • 2 Replies to lookingforatenbagger
      • "There is a DIRECT link between managmeent stock ownership and the sucess of a company. To claim is otherwise is naive at best and criminal at worst."

        Bull! Just show me where cisco and biolase have benefitted from a surfeit of options granted to management. You want i can name many others. The best link between management and company success is a well paying job they have to keep to maintain the living standards to which they've become accustomed. They should have to perform well to keep those jobs, not perform poorly so they can get options plan amended to give them more options with lower targets.

        Who was it here said management should be buying stock instead of relying on options? I've come more and more to believe you're right, whomever you are. Putting your own money up gives more incentive than laying back and hoping the ephemeral option grant some day pays off.

        I agree with Bill. Grant these guys too many options you simply give the company ownership away. What happened to the good old days when management worked for a very good salary and that was it, they worked to keep that salary? Options came in for companies to pay lower salaries with the promise of a good payoff through the options if success was obtained. That's how msft did it, less pay with the options acting like a good salesman's commission if you were successful. The idea was not to pay a good salary plus grant a multitude of options.

      • The use of stock options soared when the IRS capped compensation of corporate executives and indicated that compensation above the cap must be performance based to be deductable.

        That became the driver for big options grants tied to performance and became the incentive for executives to take big risks - after all they only got the big reward if they hit the targets. Despite this you will not hear anyone in Congress admitting their error or contribution to the abuse of options or the failures caused by taking excessive risks.

        Keep in mind that it takes a contingent reward that is at least 2X-3X in order to give the executive a perceived equal reward for the services.

        This is a good modern example of unintended consequences. It all lead to SOX.

        ij

 
BIOL
2.635-0.065(-2.41%)Dec 24 12:59 PMEST

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.
Virgin America Inc.
NASDAQWed, Dec 24, 2014 1:00 PM EST
Amira Nature Foods Ltd.
NYSEWed, Dec 24, 2014 1:04 PM EST