Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : IATV-ACTV Digital Convergence Software-HyperTV -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: art slott who wrote (3701)	5/17/1999 10:26:00 AM
From: Mike Fredericks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13157

I want to focus the thread on why the stock will be moving up. I want to focus the thread on why the stock will be moving. The stock will either move up or down (or not at all). I want to hear all the pluses and all the minuses because that way I can get the best mental picture as to what the stock will do. I think that we would tend to agree that the pluses outweigh the minuses (or we wouldn't be long). The deals with Liberty and the Set Top Box makers are all big pluses. I don't view the press in Business Week as a big plus as we all see that it's hype from a two-bit promoter, just because it made it into print in a legitimate publication doesn't make it true. I don't see Liberty buying out IATV. However, all the press in major publications does get us mindshare, which is important. The comp plan will have no effect on that i'm quite sure. So what you're saying is that even if, for every penny of profits the company makes, we pay Samuels 2 pennies (thus insuring that the company never makes a profit on paper), it will have no effect on stock price? I don't get it - I thought that the bottom line profits were one of the biggest influences on stock price (for profitable stocks anyway) - when Compaq leaked that dreadful earnings were forthcoming, the stock tanked from 37 down to 23. Earnings are everything. The compensation plan could turn an otherwise profitable quarter into yet another quarter with a loss. I would prefer a compensation plan where the compensation to the executives didn't hit the bottom line in quite the same way. I agree that they should get filthy rich off of it, but not make so much money that it cripples stock price. At some point this is going to go from a story stock to a stock that is earning money, and will then get priced based on earnings. The compensation plan that keeps earnings low is dreadful. This is my last post on executive compensation. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sorry to hear you say that discussion on a negative aspect of the company is just playing right into the shorts hands (while focusing on hype posted in Businessweek is allright). Your refusing to talk about it any more is not going to make the problem go away. Did you read the post where I posted the numbers and how 1 cent in earnings resulted in a 2 cent charge against earnings for executive compensation (or more with a higher P/E, less with a smaller P/E, but a smaller P/E would drop the stock price anyway). Could you please refute my numbers? If I'm wrong, show me. It's quite possible I missed something. Just please do not use past stock performance as your "proof." If anything, the past stock performance hindered us in a major way on Friday as the earnings came out and totally stunk because of the millions of dollars in compensation (due to that stock performance) when there were only $400K in revenues (that's revenues, not profits). Believe me, I don't want anyone shorting the stock. I'm long and on margin and only 1/2 point or so away from a margin call. So, if you can prove me wrong then that would scare the shorts away much faster than your refusing to talk about it. Your proving me wrong helps both of us because we're both long. So please, have at it. I want to be wrong. -Mike