Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 8:12 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 18 mins

Recent

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

Barrett Business Services Inc. Message Board

diewarheit 99 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 24, 2015 4:12 PM Member since: Jun 22, 2014
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    ACE

    by igoryashiboklikov Jan 20, 2015 9:11 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 24, 2015 4:12 PM Flag

    Insurance is not good when it's the result of a government regulation on a company that admittedly (10-28-14) couldn't make money without hiding the truth. The regulation forced the involvement of ACE. You seem to gloss over the fact that it was ACE that discovered the discrepancy. BBSI wasn't offering that information willingly. Mr. Elich uses some of his tired rhetoric about how ACE is a "partner" but they are nothing more than a government regulated WC babysitter that BBSI has to pay out of it's own pocket.
    "It's just more insurance. Insurance is good." You're funny, I'll give you that much mojo.

  • Reply to

    ACE

    by igoryashiboklikov Jan 20, 2015 9:11 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 24, 2015 4:01 PM Flag

    Business as usual:
    On October 28, 2014, Barrett disclosed that it had a $37.8 million net loss for its 2014 fiscal third quarter and attributed the loss to an $80 million pretax increase in workers’ compensation reserves, which effectively wiped out its pretax earnings for the past five years.
    ACE to cost a wee bit:
    Premiums payable to ACE are based on a percentage of the Company's total payroll in California. In addition, the Company pays fees to ACE for administrative expenses, taxes and other assessments.

  • Reply to

    ACE

    by igoryashiboklikov Jan 20, 2015 9:11 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 20, 2015 11:21 AM Flag

    Just the truth. The quote below was taken from today's press release.

    "The arrangement with ACE addressed the requirements of California Senate Bill 863, under which the Company cannot continue its self-insurance program in California beyond January 1, 2015. All of BBSI's California clients were transitioned to ACE policies prior to the 12/31/2014 deadline."

    How does this help business? All it means is that they have to pay more for any business they already had and new business will be at a lower margin. It's an increased cost on about 80% of the revenue for a business that hasn't turned a profit in five years.

    Please explain how this is good news for the future.

  • Reply to

    ACE

    by igoryashiboklikov Jan 20, 2015 9:11 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 20, 2015 10:30 AM Flag

    1-21-14 the price was $100.90. What is today?

    ACE's agreement to take BBSI"s money in order to satisfy new regulations in CA is not something to celebrate. The additional cost is harmful, not helpful. 2014 was a precursor. Enjoy the ride.

  • Reply to

    Insider Transactions

    by diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 6:33 PM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 6, 2015 2:24 PM Flag

    If they were that confident in investing with BBSI why are there so many same day options and sales? Especially those optioned at a cost of $0. If the company was going to do so well long term why sell them right away?
    Part of the explanation for this behavior is that BBSI has known since early 2013 about the change that took effect in CA on New Years Day. They knew what had been going on there was coming to an end and they cashed out.

  • Reply to

    Money Not Earned

    by diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 5:34 PM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 6, 2015 9:50 AM Flag

    Yahoo finance wouldn't have that information because it's not information BBSI wants anyone to have. For that you will need some sources inside of BBSI. It might be difficult for you to find your first source but there are plenty of BBSI employees willing to talk and share information. Over the years the accounting practices of BBSI have been questioned by many employees.
    A quick bit of research and I'm sure you could find contact information for the BBSI branch closest to you. Many of them have facebook pages. Happy hunting.
    I'll gladly share information but I'm not sharing any of my sources.

  • Reply to

    Insider Transactions

    by diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 6:33 PM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 6, 2015 8:04 AM Flag

    No, I don't agree. And neither does Wells Fargo. Notice they are not allowed to purchase additional stock according to the terms of the loan agreement.

  • Reply to

    Form 8-K for BBSI 1/5/15

    by diewarheit Jan 5, 2015 4:39 PM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 5, 2015 4:41 PM Flag

    Info taken from the form 8-K filed shortly after the market closed.

    The Agreement also includes certain negative covenants as follows:
    � A prohibition on incurring additional indebtedness without the prior approval of the Bank, other than up to $200,000 per year in purchase money financing;
    � A prohibition on repurchases of the Company's common stock;
    � A prohibition on increasing quarterly cash dividends above $.22 per share; also, cash dividends may be paid only so long as there is no default by the Company and payment would not cause a default; and
    � Capital expenditures may not exceed a total of $5,000,000 in 2015 and $4,000,000 in 2016.

  • Info taken from the form 8-K filed shortly after the market closed.

    Item 8.01. Other Events.
    Effective December 30, 2014, the Company transferred cash in the amount of $75 million to its wholly owned subsidiary Associated Insurance Company for Excess, in order to provide additional collateral for the Company's required security deposit in California with respect to its obligations regarding the payment of workers' compensation claims. The Company's required security deposit in California at December 31, 2014, increased by approximately $85.9 million to a total of approximately $190.6 million.

  • Reply to

    Money Not Earned

    by diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 5:34 PM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 5, 2015 11:19 AM Flag

    Here's another example taken from the insider transaction tab. It's full of transactions like this one from senior management and members of the board. They aren't all as obvious as the same day transactions you see here.

    Jul 30, 2013 MILLER JAMES D Officer
    19,007 Direct Sale at $67.54 per share. 1,283,732
    Jul 30, 2013 MILLER JAMES D Officer
    19,007 Direct Option Exercise at $11.08 - $17.5 per share. N/A
    Jul 29, 2013 MILLER JAMES D Officer
    16,293 Direct Sale at $68.40 per share. 1,114,441
    Jul 29, 2013 MILLER JAMES D Officer
    16,293 Direct Option Exercise at $11.08 - $11.97 per share. 188,0002

  • Too bad this doesn't work more like the NFL draft. With roughly a few dozen law firms involved this whole process could be much more entertaining.

    "With the first pick of the first round Levi & Korsinsky select, Joe Schmoe Investing as Lead Plaintiff."

  • Reply to

    2015

    by diewarheit Jan 2, 2015 11:07 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 5, 2015 9:40 AM Flag

    Just the truth nowaysns. Didn't enough people get financially hurt by this company last year? Hiding info from investors and not paying employees as promised. What a way to run a company.

  • Reply to

    Money Not Earned

    by diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 5:34 PM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 5, 2015 9:30 AM Flag

    Source of information is Yahoo! finance. On the insider transaction tab.

  • diewarheit by diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 6:33 PM Flag

    From 2-21-13 to 11-4-14 there was only one straight purchase of BBSI stock by an insider. That was made on 5-2-13. Other than that single purchase everything was either exercising options or disposition (non open market). Oddly enough shortly after the public learned the truth the following stock purchases were made.

    Coincidence?

    Nov 5, 2014 JUSTESEN JON L Director
    4,000 Direct Purchase at $22.93 per share. 91,720
    Nov 5, 2014 CARLEY THOMAS J Director
    4,000 Direct Purchase at $23.04 per share. 92,160
    Nov 4, 2014 ELICH MICHAEL L Officer
    6,200 Direct Purchase at $24.07 per share. 149,234
    Nov 4, 2014 MILLER JAMES D Officer
    4,000 Direct Purchase at $23.26 per share. 93,040
    Nov 4, 2014 BLOTZ GERALD Officer
    1,675 Direct Purchase at $23.91 per share. 40,049
    Nov 4, 2014 VAUGHN GREGORY R Officer
    8,333 Direct Purchase at $23.26 per share. 193,825

  • Reply to

    Money Not Earned

    by diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 5:34 PM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 6:14 PM Flag

    Third example of CEO Mike Elich taking advantage of a stock he is manipulating.

    May 2, 2013 ELICH MICHAEL LOfficer
    12,964 Direct Option Exercise at $15.20 per share. 197,052
    May 2, 2013 ELICH MICHAEL LOfficer
    12,964 Direct Sale at $52.22 per share. 676,980

    Lining his own pockets at the expense of investors that were not fully informed and employees that were not paid as promised. It's interesting how insider activity died down after July of 2014 like they knew what was going to happen. And then didn't pick up until early November when it was time to save face.

  • diewarheit by diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 5:34 PM Flag

    One example of CEO Mike Elich taking advantage of a stock he is manipulating. This transaction was made after Mr. Elich had been warned directly about the accounting practices of BBSI.

    Apr 30, 2013 ELICH MICHAEL L Officer
    25,133 Direct Option Exercise at $9.27 - $15.2 per share. N/A
    Apr 30, 2013 ELICH MICHAEL L Officer
    25,133 Direct Sale at $53.32 - $54.07 per share. 1,350,0002

  • Reply to

    2015

    by diewarheit Jan 2, 2015 11:07 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 4:37 PM Flag

    Your comment that moral is up now that negative conjecture has been cleared up is another lie. Most of the branch level employees have no idea what has been going on because the corporate office has not exactly been open about recent events with their staff. One Branch Manager told me about a month ago that corporate is acting as if it is, "Business as usual, like nothing happened." Exact quote.
    In just the past six months I've heard current BBSI employees refer to CEO Mike Elich as; Little Dictator, Hitler, liar, Napoleon and a few other names that would get this post deleted. Anyone you have spoken to that claims moral is up must be one of the people trying to avoid an indictment. Branch level staff have despised Elich and the corporate office for years. This latest incident made it worse, not better.

  • Reply to

    2015

    by diewarheit Jan 2, 2015 11:07 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 4:22 PM Flag

    Hey mojo, I'm assuming EOY means End Of Year. BBSI pays branch bonuses quarterly, not at the end of the year. How well do you know these people? Do they work at the corporate office? Do you have any clue what you are talking about? So who exactly is spouting off lies here?

  • Reply to

    2015

    by diewarheit Jan 2, 2015 11:07 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 3, 2015 4:16 PM Flag

    Proving right there that you have no idea what you are talking about. Most of the PEO business in CA is under 3% profit margin to begin with. And negative the first half of the year. What room? Price is the only reason those clients are with BBSI. Raise the price even 3% and that business is gone. They are nothing but a WC discount to clients in CA and that ended two days ago.

  • Reply to

    2015

    by diewarheit Jan 2, 2015 11:07 AM
    diewarheit diewarheit Jan 2, 2015 1:55 PM Flag

    Margins on the branch level hearnthar. Those will go down due to additional cost. And most of the PEO business in that state didn't make money the first 2 quarters to begin with by design. They aren't profitable until tax caps are met by employees of those clients. The additional ACE cost does not improve this situation. The no profit you're talking about is the trickle up problem of corporate overhead and mismanagement. I agree with your overall sentiment, just looking at it a different way.

BBSI
29.68+0.49(+1.68%)Jan 26 4:00 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.