Since you found the proxy information useful, here's a bit more from the Proxy Monitor, regarding amending the 1992 stock option plan..."We recommend a NAY ballot on this board-backed resolution, a vote against management. At last count, only 32500 shares remained available for awards under CCSI's 1992 stock option plan out of an original authorization of 2 million shares. Without the least hint of embarrassment, the powers that be now seek clearance to increase the option kitty by an additional 1 million shares, bringing the total to a somewhat outrageous 32.6% of record date float. Under terms of the ten-year scheme, the Board of Directors can grant options in incentive and non-qualified form to approximately 55 directors and consultants. Inter alia, the Board can grant NQOs at below market discounts of up to 15%. TPM analysts oppose even the chance of cut-rate awards and invariably advise against such schemes that provide for them. Equally, if not more unappealing, is dilution potential of the double-digit magnitude immediately in prospect. Although TPM analysts recognize the legitimate role of options in aligning the economic interests of company employees with those of public stockholders, there come a point when the potential for dilution of outside stockholders' interests outweighs the potential benefits of the options. In our view, CCSI is well beyond this point."
to be honest, I hope you all vote with management and Skippy. In fact, please vote with management on the proxy issues. Hey Skip, I'm sure none of those options have your name on them, huh.
Still waiting for the source of the cut and paste from janybird. How could someone recommend the stock so highly all over cyberspace without knowing the difference between the CCSI device and the SPRX device? Or, is it possible that she knew all the time, posted information knowing it portrayed the SPRX device as worse technology. Then, realizing that somebody who actually knew the technology might be reading the post, she recants. Is the source of the cut and paste our dear friend Skippy? not satisfied with his peanut butter fortune, he seeks additional fame and fortune on wall street. Or, was it Mrs. (sorry, she's single now, oh baby!) MacFarlane who sent incorrect information to her pal? There is no need for this to be a mystery unless there is something to hide. So why is the source of the incorrect information not divulged? |
