tengen Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 And pw is chairman of the comp committee. Note he did not get options, which would pay off only if he creates value for existing shareholders. He got restricted stock, which essentially transfers $85m of value from shareholder pockets to his, simply because he agreed to "show up" and come to work. the company never ceases to amaze. Of course their defense is "it's the going rate" and that's what our consultants told us he was worth. I don't get your distinction between options and restricted stock. Chen got 13 million shares that will vest over 5 years. If he accomplishes a miracle and saves the company, I don't see this as outrageous. Otherwise he will have 13 million shares of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 wrong. he would collect $85m dollars if the stock is at $6.50 a share when it all vests in 5 years. zero value creation. If the stock loses half it's value he ends up with $42m and you end up with 50c when you used to have a buck. He does not end up with "nothing". When investing it "pays" to be precise about what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 wrong. he would collect $85m dollars if the stock is at $6.50 a share when it all vests in 5 years. zero value creation. If the stock loses half it's value he ends up with $42m and you end up with 50c when you used to have a buck. He does not end up with "nothing". When investing it "pays" to be precise about what's going on. Maybe Watsa thinks it will be an accomplishment merely to preserve $6.50/SH in value for shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 He will only vest during the time he is there, & the board can fire him any time he chooses. 9 months or less if there is no miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 in which case he walks away with $6m+. we also don't know what JC has to do to get his full bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 wrong. he would collect $85m dollars if the stock is at $6.50 a share when it all vests in 5 years. zero value creation. If the stock loses half it's value he ends up with $42m and you end up with 50c when you used to have a buck. He does not end up with "nothing". When investing it "pays" to be precise about what's going on. Maybe Watsa thinks it will be an accomplishment merely to preserve $6.50/SH in value for shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Even Apple and Microsoft wanted some parts of Blackberry, but the board apparently refused... http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/08/us-blackberry-offer-board-idUSBRE9A70Z020131108 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Are you kidding? If that is in fact true, the collective whole of those guiding BBRY's future is mentally handicapped. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Are you kidding? If that is in fact true, the collective whole of those guiding BBRY's future is mentally handicapped. Wow. Hard to comment without the price tag, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Given its track record, not really. And given where the stock was trading when it was "pursuing a sale", offers were likely in the $8 to $9 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Fair point. The board is comical, accepting the 9$ without any proper binding agreement, then the deal falls thru, and the reason? The deal isn't the best because they don't want to load the company with high yield debt Then, they agree to 1 billion 6% convert which is high for convert for a company with 2.6B net cash. And this created tons of uncertainty throughout the process, probably hurt the business even more than if the 9$ deal were not announced. And the fact that the deal fails made most think BBRY worth nothing as nobody wanted it. Well, as we found out now, ppl want it but the board does not want to entertain the deal or the bidder wants a better price. I lost money thinking the deal will go through (mostly because Prem says so) but I made some money coz of Prem too and I learned from FBK deal that Prem is fair and friendly to his own shareholders only. BBRY would have done a equity raise, Prem can buy all he want as he said 9$ is cheap, but yet he decide to move a structure up, he knows the risk but he is not saying it. See what he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeenyc Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 And pw is chairman of the comp committee. Note he did not get options, which would pay off only if he creates value for existing shareholders. He got restricted stock, which essentially transfers $85m of value from shareholder pockets to his, simply because he agreed to "show up" and come to work. the company never ceases to amaze. Of course their defense is "it's the going rate" and that's what our consultants told us he was worth. I don't own shares of Blackberry -- but if I did I would gladly pay Mr Chen $85 million in restricted stock vs for example $10 million to a "lesser" candidate if I believed Mr Chen was uniquely qualified to turn the company around. My guess is that the pool of applicants qualified for trying to resurrect Blackberry is very small -- I want the best candidate -- not the cheapest one. If he can produces results that even resemble the results at Sybase his compensation will be a bargain for shareholders. Film companies pay huge salaries/back-end profit deals to actors and directors who they think can make or break a movie. Maybe they shouldn't have paid James Cameron to do Titanic or maybe they should have found a new actor to play Iron Man in the Avengers to save some money. How is this any different? In this case the difference in picking the right candidate and wrong candidate will likely impact shareholders to the tune of many billions of dollars -- why is $85 million of stock a talking point? The question should be is John Chen the right candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I am wondering... who still own BBRY here and why? TIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I don't own shares of Blackberry -- but if I did I would gladly pay Mr Chen $85 million in restricted stock vs for example $10 million to a "lesser" candidate if I believed Mr Chen was uniquely qualified to turn the company around. My guess is that the pool of applicants qualified for trying to resurrect Blackberry is very small -- I want the best candidate -- not the cheapest one. If he can produces results that even resemble the results at Sybase his compensation will be a bargain for shareholders. Film companies pay huge salaries/back-end profit deals to actors and directors who they think can make or break a movie. Maybe they shouldn't have paid James Cameron to do Titanic or maybe they should have found a new actor to play Iron Man in the Avengers to save some money. How is this any different? In this case the difference in picking the right candidate and wrong candidate will likely impact shareholders to the tune of many billions of dollars -- why is $85 million of stock a talking point? The question should be is John Chen the right candidate. they aren't paying him because he's good. We don't know if he has any special skills to make phones better. They're paying him because that's what CEOs get for showing up to work. it's the going rate according to compensation consultants. I would study up on what Buffett says about CEOs and bad businesses. Very relevant here. The CEO isn't going to be the difference here. He eventually could be if they exit devices and have some cash left over to transform. If they don't, there is no saving this company. They just may exit devices without ever publicly admitting they're actually doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 And pw is chairman of the comp committee. Note he did not get options, which would pay off only if he creates value for existing shareholders. He got restricted stock, which essentially transfers $85m of value from shareholder pockets to his, simply because he agreed to "show up" and come to work. the company never ceases to amaze. Of course their defense is "it's the going rate" and that's what our consultants told us he was worth. I don't own shares of Blackberry -- but if I did I would gladly pay Mr Chen $85 million in restricted stock vs for example $10 million to a "lesser" candidate if I believed Mr Chen was uniquely qualified to turn the company around. My guess is that the pool of applicants qualified for trying to resurrect Blackberry is very small -- I want the best candidate -- not the cheapest one. If he can produces results that even resemble the results at Sybase his compensation will be a bargain for shareholders. Film companies pay huge salaries/back-end profit deals to actors and directors who they think can make or break a movie. Maybe they shouldn't have paid James Cameron to do Titanic or maybe they should have found a new actor to play Iron Man in the Avengers to save some money. How is this any different? In this case the difference in picking the right candidate and wrong candidate will likely impact shareholders to the tune of many billions of dollars -- why is $85 million of stock a talking point? The question should be is John Chen the right candidate. Listen to what Buffet has to say about turnarounds. Those are wise words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeenyc Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I don't own shares of Blackberry -- but if I did I would gladly pay Mr Chen $85 million in restricted stock vs for example $10 million to a "lesser" candidate if I believed Mr Chen was uniquely qualified to turn the company around. My guess is that the pool of applicants qualified for trying to resurrect Blackberry is very small -- I want the best candidate -- not the cheapest one. If he can produces results that even resemble the results at Sybase his compensation will be a bargain for shareholders. Film companies pay huge salaries/back-end profit deals to actors and directors who they think can make or break a movie. Maybe they shouldn't have paid James Cameron to do Titanic or maybe they should have found a new actor to play Iron Man in the Avengers to save some money. How is this any different? In this case the difference in picking the right candidate and wrong candidate will likely impact shareholders to the tune of many billions of dollars -- why is $85 million of stock a talking point? The question should be is John Chen the right candidate. they aren't paying him because he's good. We don't know if he has any special skills to make phones better. They're paying him because that's what CEOs get for showing up to work. it's the going rate according to compensation consultants. I would study up on what Buffett says about CEOs and bad businesses. Very relevant here. The CEO isn't going to be the difference here. He eventually could be if they exit devices and have some cash left over to transform. If they don't, there is no saving this company. They just may exit devices without every publicly admitting they're actually doing it. I assume they're paying HIM (as opposed to somebody else) b/c they believe he can do a better job than the next guy. Unless you're sitting on the board, you're not privy to exactly why they feel that he's most qualified. You think great executives are knocking down on BBRY's door to be the CEO? Hey I don't believe in BBRY's turnaround. But if you are trying to turn around a multi-billion dollar company that very likely has a binary outcome - paying your incoming CEO $85 million in restricted stock is not something that a shareholder should stress about. If BBRY goes to $0 you didn't pay him very much. If you don't think the company can be turned around and you'd like them to simply sell the company -- the issue isn't the pay, but the choice of trying to turn around the company as opposed to selling it off I agree turnarounds are hard. I'm not suggesting you invest in BBRY nor am I saying Chen will be successful. Nor am I suggesting that attempting the turn around is better than trying to piecemeal the company off. I'm just saying after the board has decided they're going to attempt to turnaround the business -- why is his $85 million compensation something to be overly concerned about as a shareholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I am not a shareholder. I am not "overly" concerned about it. I made some commentary about his pay structure. Two observers of this situation may have different ways to look at it. And that's fine. You should not be overly concerned that others might believe his pay is not optimally structured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Something to think about: http://t.co/oVw6EuGdqV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 I am wondering... who still own BBRY here and why? TIA I still own BBRY because I still think that it trades below run-off/break up value. However, I do think that there is more danger now in there being an outcome where the assets are destroyed or allowed to waste away. If FFH hadn't made a bid a month and a half ago, I wouldn't be quite as pessimistic. However, by putting that bid out there, and by BBRY's management accepting that bid, the actual underlying businesses, as well as asset value, was affected. As has been mentioned several times on this thread, this basically was a signal for the best employees to leave (do you really want to work for PE owners?) and for customers to determine that another nail was in the coffin for BBRY, thereby causing many to abandon BBRY once and for all. It also signaled for other suitors (for the entire company, or for parts) to wait to see whether the bid would fall apart in order to get good assets at fire sale prices. John Chen has his work cut out for him. I do like that he seems to understand why BBRY's assets are valuable (see his thoughts on BBRY's position for M2M and IoT). But we will have to wait and see whether his proposed investments are going in the right direction. PW is also back on the board. Hopefully, he is a bit more aware and active in this regard with regards to preserving value this time around. He definitely didn't do enough to preserve value when he first got onto the board. I still can't believe he didn't back Mike Laziridis when ML said that releasing the Z10 first would be a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 I am wondering... who still own BBRY here and why? TIA I still own BBRY because I still think that it trades below run-off/break up value. However, I do think that there is more danger now in there being an outcome where the assets are destroyed or allowed to waste away. If FFH hadn't made a bid a month and a half ago, I wouldn't be quite as pessimistic. However, by putting that bid out there, and by BBRY's management accepting that bid, the actual underlying businesses, as well as asset value, was affected. As has been mentioned several times on this thread, this basically was a signal for the best employees to leave (do you really want to work for PE owners?) and for customers to determine that another nail was in the coffin for BBRY, thereby causing many to abandon BBRY once and for all. It also signaled for other suitors (for the entire company, or for parts) to wait to see whether the bid would fall apart in order to get good assets at fire sale prices. John Chen has his work cut out for him. I do like that he seems to understand why BBRY's assets are valuable (see his thoughts on BBRY's position for M2M and IoT). But we will have to wait and see whether his proposed investments are going in the right direction. PW is also back on the board. Hopefully, he is a bit more aware and active in this regard with regards to preserving value this time around. He definitely didn't do enough to preserve value when he first got onto the board. I still can't believe he didn't back Mike Laziridis when ML said that releasing the Z10 first would be a mistake. The fact that he's talking about M2M and IoT is the first red flag. Signal http he understands very little about the market. Most likely he's adhering to the party line from the PR dept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portfolio14 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 I still don't understand why the debt deal. If PW thought BBRY needed the cash for whatever reason, the original $9 buyout wouldn't have delivered it. The money would've gone into the shareholders' pockets, not BBRY's balance sheet. I have a hard time to reconcile the intention of the $9 buyout deal and that of the $1b debt deal. It appears to me they will achieve different things. Any thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 BlackBerry’s Turnaround Starts All Thumbs http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/blackberrys-turnaround-starts-all-thumbs/?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwericb Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Android apps now easily installed on BB10 with 10.2.1 ? http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/t.bb/blackberry?postid=21908817 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikazo Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 BlackBerry launches Porsche Design P'9982 luxury smartphone http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/personal-tech/gadgets-special/BlackBerry-launches-Porsche-Design-P9982-luxury-smartphone/articleshow/26105331.cms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/business/international/blackberry-chief-removes-some-top-executives.html?ref=international Blackberry Chief Removes Some Top Executives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now