not sure it makes much sense until after earnings. At that pt they can get any of the negative financial consequencies of the mgmt turnover out there and then they can discuss their plan and the future. Im with you about transparency just ok with anything revelatory coming until after the next conf call.
i think the CC reference was whether they would hold more meaty earnings calls that are longer than 30mins and not cut-off due to being "out of time"
i think it will be a rough few quarters with one time costs and turnover. if they come out with a strong plan and funding that is not very dilutive then the market will probably look past the weak near term performance. if they are able to post strong performance through this transition then that will be hugely positive for the stock. they do have time to make a splash fo the holiday season which is a good thing
i think we have to put to rest the notion that Clinton cost shareholders 4mm. it is clear at this pt that mgmt and the previosu board cost the shareholders 4mm by trying to defend themselves from changes most shareholders wanted to see.
I'm sure they worked out something. may not have gotten all of the benefits that the board recently pushed through but I'm sure he got a nice package to walk away.
transparency will be key particularly if they look to pause the path to profitability in an attempt to invest for growth. There are going to be a lot of near term costs related to severance and new expense with new hires I'm sure. How they are going to fund their vision will be huge. Will they keep the executive suite in MSP or move elsewhere? Not much to be done but wait to see what type of strategic plan they have and hope for as much detail as possible. They will obviously need a capital infusion if they want to go the route of more dramatic transformation.
It was clear that inst investors didnt want KS and if he stayed he would be lame duck until they got a nominee to finish the job on the board. Or they did want to keep him (for stability sake) and provide a last chance, but he didnt want to rise to the challenge of proving the superiority of his vision over the next yr. That is very unlikely and I'm sure its as simple as when half your board is replaced that is the writing on the wall that you are done. Making the switch immediately is a good thing for everyone.
One of the big things they missed was promoting the shophq rebranding. they seemed to treat it as more of an operational change which was odd.
no arguments. no point in bashing KS anymore from my standpoint. I voted for the Clinton nominees and the company is on better footing than it was 5 yrs ago. KS gets credit for that just as Phil Jackson gets credit for riding Jordan, Shaq and Kobe. Getting credit and actually being the reason can be two different things. Progress wasnt close to sufficient so he is out and next man up.
I do think KS was very reluctant to play the part of CEO of a public company. Bozek wont have that limitation, but as you say who knows if this team will have the vision.
Agree on all counts. As is the case with many tech companies the guys who start the company arent the best one to lead a public co. Ks fit that category but deserves credit for solidifying the foundation. The new group has to make the next step and hope they can get a relatively low cost capital infusion
the board is: beers, bozek, buck, hobbs, robinson, rosenblatt, siegel and stewart. shareholders approved of the executive compensation and approved of changes to the bylaws
i have the same recon. not related to the vendors--no idea on that. but relating to a poor internal culture and lack of organization manifesting itself in a lot of last minute changes.
I got a white one yesterday. I received multiple white and a single gold. can I suggest an insidious plot of the mgmt team or are we only allowed to suggest that of clinton.
If the intent of institutional investors via the vote is a change in leadership then it needs to happen now. Otherwise we will go through this again to remove the remaining board impediments to that happening. Once the vote is revealed we will probably get a sense what type of coordination occurred between institutional investors (and Comcast) and if the intent was to drive dramatic change or to just hang Damocles Sword very close to KS head giving him one last chance. I think hes very likely out of chances and that the two appointments from earlier this year would probably be foolish to not side with 4 new members voted in by shareholders, if in fact 4 of the nominees were elected.
they can nominate but not place someone on the board. I presume the existing board would vote to approve of an initial nomination. its probably going to have to be a nominee who has a view consistent with what shareholders have expressed via this vote. its going to be very hard for the Board at this point to go "haha we still have 5-4 majority we get to keep the status quo"
Clearly institutional investors want change and will be interesting to see what the Board composition will be as it doesn't sound as if the whole Board was removed. Regardless of what anyone thinks about Clinton, if institutional investors with a better look inside the company have rejcted the Board (in whole or part) that is quite telling.
According to our analysis of the votes that were cast, we believe that every institutional investor, mutual fund, hedge fund and other professional investment organization, save one, among ValueVision's top twenty-five owners voted for change this year," said Gregory P. Taxin, President of Clinton Group. "We are pleased that four of our nominees received support from more than 70% of the shares voted by public shareholders and were elected to the Board."
While i think the company has spent way too much money on this, if all of this activity has forced them to really take a harder look in the mirror then the money spent may pay dividends insofar as it really focuses them and adds a higher level of investor expectation on their performance than what the Board has up to this point.. Company representatives have indicated that this is a wake up call of sorts for the management team and that they realize that overcoming Clinton isn't vindication and that the pressure won't go away.
I care. I think its tough to manage a team spread far and wide if you arent a strong leader. I dont see an indication that ks is a strong leader. He may have needed to have a spread out team to get folks to work for a struggling home shopping network but now that its in better shape it needs to be tightened up to display cohesion to employees an staff.