BSC Advisors

or Register to post new content in the forum

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Mar 20, 2008 3:00 pm
 
If  these employees are professional  advisors. Can some one tell me why they would have most if not all there retirement in BSC stock
 
Most of them had to know the risk of overweighting  in company stock
 
 
 
    
 
Mar 20, 2008 5:32 pm

Great point. It can only be the culture of the firm. Its the only logical answer. Not that it makes what they did logical.

Mar 20, 2008 6:30 pm

With regards to the CEO down to their advisors...the nuts didn't fall far from the tree.

Mar 20, 2008 7:17 pm

A short CNBC blurb mentioned that (prior fiasco) the Bear Stearns CEO owned over $900 million in Bear stock. At the $2/sh price, he was down to $11-$12 million Ouch! 

Mar 20, 2008 7:27 pm

Perhaps alot was Deferred Comp or Restircted Shares and you have no choice but to have it.

Mar 20, 2008 8:03 pm

Something parallel, but not on that grand of a scale.  I know many (50+, but probably closer to at least 100) folks with 20 years or more experience at AGE who had everything in AGE stock.  When the merger was announced they kept WB stock and now look at it.  I think WB was about 58 when the merger was announced.  That is one heck of a hit and these guys are stock jocks and planners. 


Granted WB stock can always go back up if they hold onto it and WB is in a lot better shape that BSC (at least I hope it is ha ha), but most of these guys are 60 and over and look at the retirement that has been slashed (at least for the short term).
Mar 20, 2008 9:27 pm
PinBroker:

Something parallel, but not on that grand of a scale.  I know many (50+, but probably closer to at least 100) folks with 20 years or more experience at AGE who had everything in AGE stock.  When the merger was announced they kept WB stock and now look at it.  I think WB was about 58 when the merger was announced.  That is one heck of a hit and these guys are stock jocks and planners. 


Granted WB stock can always go back up if they hold onto it and WB is in a lot better shape that BSC (at least I hope it is ha ha), but most of these guys are 60 and over and look at the retirement that has been slashed (at least for the short term).
You forgot several important aspects: AGE shareholders rec'd over $37/share in cash along with the conversion of AGE for WB stock.  Yes WB stk went from 54 to 30 but we rec'd a rather large chunk in cash already so if you do your math the hit is not as bad as you might perceive, it still hurts but it's clearly not near BSC.  Additionally, most FC's that I know had significant positions from the ESOP plan and stock grants but it in no way represented a huge portion of their net worth (executives not included).  I do not know of many that had much AGE in the 401k. I can only speak for myself but, I don't think most are crying too much.  FYI not yet 50...so I can be patient with the WB that's left, it is still low basis stock.
Mar 21, 2008 3:00 pm

Maybe because the firm was employee owned ? 14000 employees had an ownership position in the firm.

Mar 22, 2008 6:54 pm
jamesbond:

Maybe because the firm was employee owned ? 14000 employees had an ownership position in the firm.

Total employee ownership of BSC was a little over 30%.