Milton/Rovinescu Stock Compensation

[Don Hudson]

John;

Thanks for the response, and the clarification.

As you say, we'll see how this matter unfolds.

One thing is clear: for the company to survive and thrive, pensions cannot simply be tossed, re-negotiated, done away with or changed to some other formula being touted as "the" solution, (defined contributions etc). You cannot take away from employees what they have paid for, without consequence. In other words, I acknowledge that pensions cannot be guaranteed, just like anything else, but that any investor who wishes to make a go of it needs to come to terms with the pension obligations already in play.

To dismiss them, renegotiate or otherwise slice/dice them will have consequences, much like the Executive Bonuses now being heavily debated above will have.

There is no escaping what employees, enmasse, can and will say, think, or do on these matters regardless of how they're "managed" or justified. These days, special executive treatment is high profile stuff, especially when its perceived to have been given while employees have been giving, giving, giving.

The next set should be really interesting.

Cheers,

Don

[Don Hudson]

Hi CDB;

"I'm not sure what your question was...",

I've made a couple of responses above which might clarify.

Cheers,

Don

[IFG]

Cripes, neo, I don't think I've said anything either unreasonable, or irrational, but I obviously have said something to wind you up (altho' at least you didn't call me paranoid). Yes, "you and I have NO IDEA what terms are for these stock grants", but we can speculate with both reason and rationality. To your additional points ...

• "...it is completely unreasonable for you to infer that that do not exist simply because you weren't told what they are. -

  First a clarification - The press release said that the stock will vest over a four year period, so it is not all handed over immediately. There is no other restriction mentioned. My doubt, rather than inference, that any further restrictions exist arises not simply from that omission, but from the notion that, IF "anticipating the kind of reaction ... the stock grant was announced up front", then any restrictions would enhance the effect and lessen the severity of that reaction, and there is no countervailing benefit to concealing them in a situation like this one. Hence, no reason not to publicise any additional restrictions, every reason to do so.

• "...options and grants to senior executives are often not made public at all," -

  I don't know all the reg's in detail, but there is a requirement for disclosure at some point of any inside dealings. Here there was a pragmatic reason to disclose earlier rather than later. But beyond that, is there not here a moral imperative, during a restructuring such as this, to disclose at the earliest opportunity? I think it was the only decent thing to do, that if they had tried to hide it, they would have been rightly castigated. No need for any efusive congratulations.

• "Mr. Li's lawyer knows Calin Rovinescu? That's nice..." -

  ...and maybe entirely coincidental, but trivialize it all you want, that connection is several factors closer than, say, Schwartz and Collenette, the interests seem more clearly aligned, the payment is huge etc. Nothing remotely like proof of any malfeasance at all, mind you, but I was commenting about optics.

• "It's his own... personal... money." -

  I don't think it's the scource of the money that's causing the grief, as much as an asymmetry between the arrangements for "victims" like creditors, and the arguably more culpable senior executives. I suppose there could be a grim relief on the part of those who have already lost/given up so much that it didn't come further out of their hides.

Maybe you did misread me, neo. While I have tried to suggest that your case is not compelling, I make no claim that an alternative one is either, and I've got no more details than you do. I'm trying not to make conclusions (borrowing DonH's phrase - suspending judgement in favour of curiosity?), but rather to consider the alternative possibilities and viewpoints. The events of the last while create as many doubts and questions as they do certainties and answers. You're certainly entitled to your analysis, and it may be entirely correct in the end. If questions and doubts fall by the wayside, and there's an opportunity to invest at a price that seems right (even tho' I burnt my fingers last time), I'll join your cheering section, but I guess I'm not ready to leap just yet... Practically, it may not matter for now. It's not like there's an alternative to the Trinity plan at this point. In the meantime, tho', human nature will take its course...

Again IMVHO - Cheers, IFG