the reason the BODs EXISTS... is to make sure these situations are not allowed to continue. I would like to know how they justify their ~200K$ annual 'stipend'. It certainly isn't a function of their effectiveness.
It the company had management that didn't think 0.00 GAAP was acceptable, and actually could instilled confidence on the street... just MAYBE this kind of stuff wouldn't happen.... instead we have Stevie.
the stock has traded 29K so far today... yeah, the analysts will be all over it.
you obviously need to reevaluate your grasp of reality... When Reed was at the helm, I read several posts how "friends of Reed" had the inside scoop. Now, they too, are basically rehashed, replacing "Hawthorne"... I am going to tell you, most/all of these posts are suffering longs trying to get back to even. Things MAY be on a more positive 'trajectile', very little, in the terms of verifiable proof is apparent.
and how many time have I seen THIS SAME post... Everybody must be reading from the same book, eh?
I suspect we vacillate right around here, until closer to CC in August.... at which time, it is ultimately up to the company to perform. On a different topic, not specific to SUPN, be kind of careful after earnings seasons winds down.... I am wrong all of the time, but certain things I watch, are starting to make some noise.
I will guarantee that NO company that has either contemplated, or progressed in a tax inversion strategy, was paying anything close to a 35% effective rate... smarten up.
Laub: "the share buybacks fulfills our commitment to returning cash to our shareholders"
(actual CC response... essentially anyway....)
[Laub's subconscious]: "I hope no one asks why the share count float isn't decreasing"
"who needs profits when you can financially engineer with NON-GAAP accounting"
Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear Laub ADMIT that the company's performance NEEDS IMPROVEMENT??
Laub, not being a company founder, has used up all his passes over the past ~seven year. BODs are SUPPOSE to be shareholder advocates. I won't go so far as to say that there is NO reason this company isn't performing, AT LEAST with its peers, but that was Laub's argument to replace the previous management (the travel issue was nothing more than a means to an end)... and he has turned out to be no better than a one hit wonder... absolutely no consistency or follow through.
Company's such as Atmel can fly under the radar, and hobble along, making it pretty comfortable for management. If ever, THIS company is in the sweet spot of a technological movement... NOTE: they wouldn't even have to succeed (although they should)... they JUST NEED CREDABILITY. They need a leader who puts the interest of ALL shareholders BEFORE himself. As long as people are satisfied with JUST BREAKING EVEN under GAAP, NOTHING CHANGES. Another earnings release more than a month after the end of the quarter?? They just don't get it...
Is this the best that Atmel can do???