Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matthew at Sycamore's avatar

Good stuff Sergey. One note, the company has no debt, the debt you cite is an untapped revolver loan.

James Emanuel's avatar

SBC at 16% of revenue is an issue - a big issue.

It is worth noting that this is the value booked in the cash flow statement, not the true cost to the company at the point of vesting.

It will be much higher than 16% in reality, but who knows the true cost ... it's opaque... that's the point.

If you're curious, Fairfax Financial is one of the few companies that does SBC properly. When the grants are issued, they buy the stock immediately on the open market and hold it as treasury stock until vesting. Fully transparent. The real cost is known upfront

SBC was initially designed for boot-strapped startups - it wasn't called SBC, it was known as sweat equity - and that made sense when the company didn't have the cash flows to pay market salary rates. But it has morphed into something else entirely. It isn't paid in lieu of salary, it is paid on top of already very generous salaries.

SBC is a de-facto tax on external investors collected to enrich insiders.

Regulators should stop this abhorrent practice.

When I see this, it speaks to the integrity of management.

Investors really ought to vote with their capital. I do. I'm don't invest in a company which operates this way.

Just sharing my thoughts.

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?