the good news is that rainmachine is gone. After nearly a decade of operation, our company was forced into bankruptcy following a series of unfortunate events, including a failed business sale and a decline in the U.S. economy.
The bad news? Rainmachine is dead. The good news? We’re not sure how, but our company has survived and is still around.
A lot may seem to have gone right for us, but that’s not to say everything was hunky-dory. We had our share of financial issues (i.e. we missed a $1.6B in revenue), and some of our investors lost their shirts. When we were sold, the deal was made without the knowledge or consent of our entire board of directors. In other words, we’re still a publicly traded company with shareholders.
It’s hard to blame all of this on the sale, but the deal was made without the consent of our entire board of directors. Because we were still a publicly traded company with shareholders, we had to make sure our compensation packages were in line with what we were legally obligated to pay. Of course, this is a problem for all publicly traded companies, because compensation packages need to be in line with what your shareholders are willing to pay you to be in line with your business.
When I say “our board of directors” I mean the entire board. The shareholders don’t have to be a big fan of an ailing company’s direction. In fact, they should be a major fan of the direction in order that you can continue to grow you business. The board, as the largest shareholder in a company, should make sure you do just that.
RainMachine is a publicly held company that has been around for a long time. It has a small number of shareholders, and a small number of directors. If you are interested in investing in an ailing company, look for the directors who are big fans of your direction and ask them to help you work out your compensation plan.
RainMachine is the most likely company to get a major shakeup as a result of this. The board could choose to take a more hands-off approach, or they could choose to put in place a more progressive compensation plan. Either way, they will have to make major changes to their compensation structure to make it work for them. If they elect to take a more hands-off approach, the board could still make major changes to their compensation plan.
In the end, the board will decide whether to go with a more hands-off or progressive compensation approach. That’s not to say they will make major changes to their compensation plan. That would mean they make their compensation structure more progressive, which isn’t likely to happen. Instead, the board could choose to take a more hands-off approach, or they could choose to put in place a more progressive compensation plan.
It’s hard to say. Because a hands-off approach to compensation would mean that the board would be more willing to approve compensation that isnt so progressive as that would mean they would make a compromise that isnt so progressive. But a hands-off approach could also mean that they would make major changes to their compensation plan, which could mean they make more progressive compensation, which is the more likely outcome.
the more progressive approach could mean that the board members would be willing to approve a lot of compensation, but they would do it in a way that wasnt so progressive. A hands-off approach would mean that they would make major changes, which could mean a lot more progressive compensation, and that is the more likely outcome. We have no idea what the outcome might be, but we should be prepared for the worst.