|
Post by agedhippie on May 17, 2019 9:34:12 GMT -5
Ignore the options, just take Mike's base salary and non-stock incentive plan and you are a long way past the ADA CEO's salary. Really it's irrelevant though, the comparison should be with the CEOs in other companies in this sector with the same market cap and revenue.
My current employer awards me a chunk of RSUs which vest over a two year period. The aim is that half my salary is cash and half is vested RSUs. If the share price does well then I make out like a bandit (happily it has doubled since the original award), but if it falls then my income suffers accordingly. It seems to me that this is how C-level staff should be paid. Options on the other hand lack that linkage - if the company does badly they don't exercise the stock and so avoid the shareholders pain.
|
|
|
Post by longliner on May 17, 2019 9:44:42 GMT -5
Order filled, I paid less than management will to exercise their options. See how easy that was!
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on May 17, 2019 9:46:44 GMT -5
Ignore the options, just take Mike's base salary and non-stock incentive plan and you are a long way past the ADA CEO's salary. Really it's irrelevant though, the comparison should be with the CEOs in other companies in this sector with the same market cap and revenue. My current employer awards me a chunk of RSUs which vest over a two year period. The aim is that half my salary is cash and half is vested RSUs. If the share price does well then I make out like a bandit (happily it has doubled since the original award), but if it falls then my income suffers accordingly. It seems to me that this is how C-level staff should be paid. Options on the other hand lack that linkage - if the company does badly they don't exercise the stock and so avoid the shareholders pain. Yet, they vest at 1/48th of their position and the shares are not 100% theirs until they do all four years. So, it really doesn't make sense to sit on your hands in 2019 and waste four years to pick up scraps in 2023 for shares that gained a big fat egg, 0! Like you said, they are incentivized to make the SP move up, to make out like bandits. They can leave after 1 year and take home a paltry 25% of their award, 2 years for 50%, 3 years for 75% and the whole enchilada after 4 years. The angst over the award of restricted shares just boggles my mind. I get it, I do. It's over...we can sit here in the past or we can look ahead.
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on May 17, 2019 9:47:45 GMT -5
Order filled, I paid less than management will to exercise their options. See how easy that was! And now you have 100% of the downside risk while they have 0. I don’t think you understand the benefits of stock options.
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 17, 2019 10:15:50 GMT -5
I find it rather tantalizing how some people limit their judgement and opinions on this topic to MannKind instead of playing Judge and holding all companies in existence to the same.
BTW-awesomo you remind me of someone...
And, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on May 17, 2019 10:23:34 GMT -5
I find it rather tantalizing how some people limit their judgement and opinions on this topic to MannKind instead of playing Judge and holding all companies in existence to the same. BTW-awesomo you remind me of someone... And, that's mytakeonit Stop making completely erroneous comparisons like comparing Castagna's SALARY to the TOTAL COMPENSATION of the CEO of a non-profit as a means to justify the raises/bonuses. I can't tell if you are being dishonest or if you truly don't understand the difference. Castagna Salary: 500,000Kevin Hagan (ADA CEO) Salary: 116,208Castagna Total Compensation: 1,508,741Kevin Hagan (ADA CEO) Total Compensation: 553,926It's right there on the charts you posted.
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on May 17, 2019 10:45:16 GMT -5
RSUs are totally free to the employee and will have some value unless the company goes under.
Stock options may or may not have value to the employee in the future. In either case, the employee wins big if the stock moves up. All I want to do is hang on to their shirt tails and go along for the ride up.
If investors are that upset about standard practices of publicly traded companies, or MNKD in particular, they should not be investors.
|
|
|
Forms 4
May 17, 2019 12:57:50 GMT -5
Post by agedhippie on May 17, 2019 12:57:50 GMT -5
RSUs are totally free to the employee and will have some value unless the company goes under. Stock options may or may not have value to the employee in the future. In either case, the employee wins big if the stock moves up. All I want to do is hang on to their shirt tails and go along for the ride up. If investors are that upset about standard practices of publicly traded companies, or MNKD in particular, they should not be investors. The difference between options and RSUs are that RSUs form part of the base salary, whereas options tend to be bonus. Suppose for simplicity Mike is paid $500k per annum; make $250k of that cash and the other half RSUs to the value of $250k. There is nothing to say you cannot use options as well, but really the increase in value of the RSUs when the company does well replaces the options. This is the way the tech companies are working now - hence half my salary is RSUs.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on May 17, 2019 14:34:25 GMT -5
RSUs are totally free to the employee and will have some value unless the company goes under. Stock options may or may not have value to the employee in the future. In either case, the employee wins big if the stock moves up. All I want to do is hang on to their shirt tails and go along for the ride up. If investors are that upset about standard practices of publicly traded companies, or MNKD in particular, they should not be investors. It's like being upset with politics in a democracy. It may still be the best thing out there even if a lot of bad sh.. stuff happens. Not a reason to simply ignore the bad and act like it's an acceptable new normal. Executive compensation has been getting more egregious, and it's a quite orchestrated, sophisticated system set up to justify it and isolate boards from accountability and criticism. An entire industry of compensation consulting has formed which basically serves the function of circularly justifying more industry raises with the prior raises they just got done justifying. The high performers have to stay a certain amount ahead of the mediocre ones, but the mediocre ones can't get too far behind... an upward spiral fueled by the legitimacy of a very expensive report. The spiral ebbs and flows to some extent, but an awful lot of very rapid flowing over the years, which can be seen in how much faster exec compensation has grown vs other wages. Founder run companies can be very different. Many original founders aren't siphoning off extra shares all while they are serving, they are simply taking advantage of the shares they've held since before IPO that can be a large portion of the company. They are not imposing dilution on other shareholders. Also usually they tend to be more modest with salaries until such time profitability takes off. So, bottom line. I'll still be somewhat upset with escalating C-suite compensation, that often seems discounted from performance, while at the same time realizing that without a defined benefit pension, I have no choice but to have money in the stock market in order to adequately fund my retirement.
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 17, 2019 16:12:51 GMT -5
I find it rather tantalizing how some people limit their judgement and opinions on this topic to MannKind instead of playing Judge and holding all companies in existence to the same. BTW-awesomo you remind me of someone... And, that's mytakeonit Stop making completely erroneous comparisons like comparing Castagna's SALARY to the TOTAL COMPENSATION of the CEO of a non-profit as a means to justify the raises/bonuses. I can't tell if you are being dishonest or if you truly don't understand the difference. Castagna Salary: 500,000Kevin Hagan (ADA CEO) Salary: 116,208Castagna Total Compensation: 1,508,741Kevin Hagan (ADA CEO) Total Compensation: 553,926It's right there on the charts you posted. That's fine, let's go— NVAX just had to do a one-for-twenty reverse stock split and their revenue for 2018 was $34.3 million. CEO of NVAX base salary for 2018: $642,720. CEO of NVAX total compensation for 2018: $4,158,398 If you would look at the Peer Data MannKind used for 2018 and 2019 Executive Compensation then you would see that some companies had a net revenue of less than $20M or barely over $20M. Wonder what those CEOs' salaries and total comp are? Well, here's one example: Arena Pharmaceuticals CEO base salary for 2017: $620,00 Arena Pharmaceuticals CEO total compensation for 2017: $2,915,945 Arena Pharmaceuticals full-year 2017 revenues totaled: $21.3 million. Lowest paid Arena Pharmaceutical Executive Officer for 2017: $400,000 Lowest total compensation for an Arena Pharmaceutical Executive Officer for 2017: $1,599,325 I am looking forward to your response that will hopefully explain to me why and how there is any logic in your argument against why MannKind Executives' salaries and compensations are not justified (even though they are certainly less than these two examples).
|
|
|
Forms 4
May 17, 2019 16:43:09 GMT -5
Post by awesomo on May 17, 2019 16:43:09 GMT -5
That's fine, let's go— NVAX just had to do a one-for-twenty reverse stock split and their revenue for 2018 was $34.3 million. CEO of NVAX base salary for 2018: $642,720. CEO of NVAX total compensation for 2018: $4,158,398 If you would look at the Peer Data MannKind used for 2018 and 2019 Executive Compensation then you would see that some companies had a net revenue of less than $20M or barely over $20M. Wonder what those CEOs' salaries and total comp are? Well, here's one example: Arena Pharmaceuticals CEO base salary for 2017: $620,00 Arena Pharmaceuticals CEO total compensation for 2017: $2,915,945 Arena Pharmaceuticals full-year 2017 revenues totaled: $21.3 million. Lowest paid Arena Pharmaceutical Executive Officer for 2017: $400,000 Lowest total compensation for an Arena Pharmaceutical Executive Officer for 2017: $1,599,325 I am looking forward to your response that will hopefully explain to me why and how there is any logic in your argument against why MannKind Executives' salaries and compensations are not justified (even though they are certainly less than these two examples). See, these are far more relevant comparisons. And I never said MannKind's current salaries/compensations are not justified, I took issue with your argument defending the raise/bonuses for the reason I listed above. It was not a valid comparison. Novavax has been a disaster, so probably not a company that you want to mimic. Also, their market cap at the end of 2018 was around 750M, so around 2-3x of what MannKind was at the time. Arena is doing much better, their market cap is 2.68B and has been consistently growing since 2017. They also negotiated a deal in 2018 with UTHR for an upfront payment of 800M with the potential to go up to 1.2B along with double digit royalties. So yeah, I think their management team did pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 17, 2019 17:05:00 GMT -5
RSUs are totally free to the employee and will have some value unless the company goes under. Stock options may or may not have value to the employee in the future. In either case, the employee wins big if the stock moves up. All I want to do is hang on to their shirt tails and go along for the ride up. If investors are that upset about standard practices of publicly traded companies, or MNKD in particular, they should not be investors. Or they should be contacting the proper chain of command, such as one of 3 Letter agencies or in this case, the SEC and the DOJ. I know from experience that if you are 100% certain of illegal practices and have verifiable proof, irrefutable evidence, then someone in one of these regulatory arms is going to react and will certainly do so if you actually have something that opens them up to ethical and professional accountability and/or state and federal laws. Unless MannKind is participating in illegal activities, then people are merely using management as a punching bag and whining about nothing significant or of substance. Hell, there is attorneys on the board that know this. MannKind is certainly one of the most ethical pharma companies out there and for sure do not make more than even those are NVAX and Arena. How are people that invested in NVAX not more upset with what is happening over there? Have you seen the CEO's salary and total compensation? Good god, it drowns Mike Castagna's and that company is not even close to being in MannKind's level—in any way. You can't just make unsubstantiated allegations with no evidence supporting it. Show some irrefutable evidence that shows me this is illegal. If there isn't any then I can't believe why someone would waste months of time and energy over personal feelings. You could have been contacting state and local law makers, the SEC, the DOJ, your governor, etc... Amazing what money can do to people!
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 17, 2019 17:17:24 GMT -5
That's fine, let's go— NVAX just had to do a one-for-twenty reverse stock split and their revenue for 2018 was $34.3 million. CEO of NVAX base salary for 2018: $642,720. CEO of NVAX total compensation for 2018: $4,158,398 If you would look at the Peer Data MannKind used for 2018 and 2019 Executive Compensation then you would see that some companies had a net revenue of less than $20M or barely over $20M. Wonder what those CEOs' salaries and total comp are? Well, here's one example: Arena Pharmaceuticals CEO base salary for 2017: $620,00 Arena Pharmaceuticals CEO total compensation for 2017: $2,915,945 Arena Pharmaceuticals full-year 2017 revenues totaled: $21.3 million. Lowest paid Arena Pharmaceutical Executive Officer for 2017: $400,000 Lowest total compensation for an Arena Pharmaceutical Executive Officer for 2017: $1,599,325 I am looking forward to your response that will hopefully explain to me why and how there is any logic in your argument against why MannKind Executives' salaries and compensations are not justified (even though they are certainly less than these two examples). See, these are far more relevant comparisons. And I never said MannKind's current salaries/compensations are not justified, I took issue with your argument defending the raise/bonuses for the reason I listed above. It was not a valid comparison. Novavax has been a disaster, so probably not a company that you want to mimic. Also, their market cap at the end of 2018 was around 750M, so around 2-3x of what MannKind was at the time. Arena is doing much better, their market cap is 2.68B and has been consistently growing since 2017. They also negotiated a deal in 2018 with UTHR for an upfront payment of 800M with the potential to go up to 1.2B along with double digit royalties. So yeah, I think their management team did pretty well. I don't really see any justification with NVAX nor Arena's salaries and comps, but I do see it with MannKind's, including the raises and bonuses. If I really believed they were 100% doing something that was illegal then I would obviously have to arrived at that conclusion by way of evidence. Is your relentless negativity and arguments against this merely your opinions?
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 17, 2019 17:24:29 GMT -5
Mango, so funny you would mention the NVAX CEO. Because something in this thread made me think of him because he’s nuts🤣 Other than that I’m confused about the whole unethical subject ..who is accusing who of what? I think you hold a stock because you feel like it’s under valued and it has potential. People are here because of the science.
|
|
|
Forms 4
May 17, 2019 17:25:43 GMT -5
Post by awesomo on May 17, 2019 17:25:43 GMT -5
I don't really see any justification with NVAX nor Arena's salaries and comps, but I do see it with MannKind's, including the raises and bonuses. If I really believed they were 100% doing something that was illegal then I would obviously have to arrived at that conclusion by way of evidence. So you don't see justification with Arena's compensations with their market cap being 10x of MannKind and negotiating a 800M guaranteed, 1.2B+ potential deal with UTHR? Yet you see the justification for raises with MannKind's performance? And why are you talking about anything illegal? Anyways, I'm done with this argument. You've already convinced yourself.
|
|