Re: Ridelongride, about the SEC doc.
by: ridelongride 10/25/01 11:41 am
Msg: 315733 of 315738
if this is what we think it is, it is to re-price high strike options that appear right now to be un-exercisable in any reasonable horizon in which the employee who first received them thought they would be...in other words, these are worthless options right now that do nothing to retain these employees as they were intended when granted...from our point of view, we would prefer to keep them worthless, obviously to prevent any dilution they would cause, however, if by not re-pricing them we stand to lose key employees, then they need to consider re-pricing as an option (but this is usually an option of last resort & not one imo the street looks kindly on)...in this filing it appears to be an "example", if you go back & look at prior filings, I believe you will see more in the way of these of high priced options that they intend to re-price (if it was that small, why do it?)...as to the new strike price in the 1:4 restricted form, that they do not seem to be disclosing yet, just the conversion factor (at least that I saw), so we wait for the most important # until the next filing, but I assume we are talking current employee option prices of around $1...the only thing that makes me feel a little better about this (even though I expeced this sooner than this, but was hoping at this point they wouldn't do it), is that hopefully the 200 to be cut are not a part of this re-pricing, but we'll see....Jain has always been big on options, that's a big problem for him right now, because they are either worth little or are under-water, and employees who supplement their income with them are most likely none too happy to say the least...but you know what? Jain's first line of defense to should be to set out a strategic financial plan to monetize this thing faster to get the price moving (this is done by companies in this position to put a high stake in the ground, & the street usually loves it when it is well supported & a credible stretch target), that's where we need to keep the pressure on Jain, options are fine as a tool if he can keep the price moving upward, but when he needs to re-price them due to past performance issues, that's a problem for us the owners, & when I know more, I fully intend to let them know just that...all this is not to say that I don't feel just as strongly about INSPs prospects going forward, this is just Jain (& us) still paying somewhat for his past mistakes, & note when I say past I mean past, he can afford no repeat, nor do we expect 1, all imho
Posted as a reply to: Msg 315723 by howsmydrivingal |
