Rumor now has it that only one person shows up in the 1997 annual report and it isn't the COO. This is the first time in recent history that only the CEO has been pictured. Is this the first indication that the CEO is "throwing over sand bags" to keep his balloon in the air?
Dan, just a suggestion: I don't know what kind of agreement you have with Bard which gives Bard "marketing responsibilities," but you may want to have your lawyer check a couple of things. Most important, I hope you have a "change in control" provision that allows your company to decide what happens when Bard gets bought by some other company (if they ever find a buyer) and second, I hope you have sales targets or minimum sales that allow your company to terminate the agreement if Bard is not marketing it effectively. I also hope you have the right to review the type of expenditure they are making in promoting your product. (A reasonable bet is that you will be disappointed). Good Luck - you'll need it even if you have a great product.
I'm glad someone brought that up. That was the most bizarre Annual Report. Not one reference to the COO. But just as strange: compare your last year's Annual Report to this year in the references to Senior Executives (re: compensation, stock options, etc.) Not one reference to Tim Ring (nice picture though), who was the only one of the Group V.P.'s mentioned last year. Instead, the only Group V.P. who shows up under that category this year is Weiland - who wasn't even mentioned last year. (Note: what happened to all of Ring's options???) What's up????? Do they think that shareholders are too stupid to notice or is management too arogant to care??? Then, to top it off, there was no shareholder proposal in the Proxy Statement regarding a motion to change management. My understanding is that there was such a proposal and that outside counsel opined that it was legally required to be included. Yet, surprise: no such proposal. Of course, I may have understood wrong... but someone should do some checking. I would have loved to have seen the response to such a proposal - particularly after such dismal 1997 results.
Regarding "throwing over sandbags," undoubtedly a few more sandbags will be thrown over....but the balloon is deflating too fast for sandbags to matter at this point. In order to save himself, Longfield will most likely try to catch the tail of a low flying jet overhead, probably J&J. But lest there be any question, as can be seen in the Proxy Statement, he has one hell of a golden parachute (not to mention one million in compensation for such lousy 1997 results). There oughta be laws...
Ya gotta love it! Only at Bard would they have the balls to highlight the cardiology business in the annual report at the same time that they are using Dillon Read to sell the business. Not a good sign for Benson that his picture and signature is missing!
I'm a pretty intelligent guy. I have tried to rationalize the performance of our beloved company's stock performance for the past several years. I can't seem to figure out what the hell goes on with our corporate officers.
I am remined of the movie "Wall Street" when Michael Douglas stands up at a stockholder's meeting and says..."Gentelemen, we are in this business to make money for our stockholders and you are not making us any money". At that point, the board is voted out.....is there a Michael Douglas out there among our stockholders or are we all just going to go along with the "head up our ass" philosophy that permeates the corporate world. God, they must all walk with a limp there heads are so far up there!!!
We would be better off if some other company bought pieces of us.
Hell..........it could't get much worse.
Thank God for other options in our 401k...otherwise we would all be ready to retire with a negative amt in our balances.
It's frustrating to see other medical companies do very well while we wallow in a bottomless pit of mediocrity.
Does anyone hear us????.......... Does anyone really give a damn?.......
StkObserver, What do you think would happen if the majority of the shareholders voted negatively on the first proposal which basically says the COO is out? I realize the institutional people have probably been lined up but stranger things have happened as in past years when "great proposals" have been shot down. It would be interesting to see how the COO would be disposed of if he is still on the board.