Mobile Mini Inc. has a market cap of $557.4 million; its shares were traded at around $15.32 with a P/E ratio of 25.11 and P/S ratio of 1.49. Mobile Mini Inc. had an annual average earning growth of 13.3% over the past 10 years. GuruFocus rated Mobile Mini Inc. the business predictability rank of 5-star.MINI is in the portfolios of Columbia Wanger of Columbia Wanger Asset Management, James Barrow of Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, George Soros of Soros Fund Management LLC.
Highlight of Business Operations:As part of the Board of Directors yearly budgeting and goal setting process, in December 2008, the Compensation Committee reviewed the base salaries of the Companys executive officers to ensure they fairly and competitively compensated these individuals for the jobs they perform. The Compensation Committee considered the Companys performance in fiscal 2008, the current economic outlook for the economy, the Companys prospects for 2009, and the Companys efforts to cut or control costs. The Compensation Committee also considered the salary recommendations of Mr. Bunger for each of the named executive officers. Based on all of the foregoing factors, the Compensation Committee recommended to the full Board, and the full Board concurred, that the Company generally target 3% increases in base salary for all employees, including executive officers, depending upon individual performance. Based on a review by the Compensation Committee and the Board of Mr. Bungers performance and recommendations, he was given the targeted 3% increase in base salary from 2008 to 2009. Mr. Lemleys salary change does not reflect an increase from 2008 to 2009 due to a change in positions.
The named executive officers (NEOs) that received incentive cash compensation (other than Mr. Funk) failed to achieve substantially all of the company-wide targets necessary for the receipt of cash bonuses. Mr. Funk had a guaranteed bonus minimum based on his employment agreement negotiated when he joined the Company. The CEO and CFOs targets were, as disclosed, based on revenue, adjusted EBITDA and adjusted diluted earnings per share. None of the targets for these measures were met. For the other NEOs, their measures were weighted equally at 30% Company-wide results and 70% geographic specific results for the areas they were responsible for during the year. Based on achievement of relatively small portions of geographic specific results, Messrs. Halchishak, Lemley and Miller received 6.0%, 1.1% and 2.1%, respectively, of their total compensation in the form of a bonus. The following discussion provides a summary of the attainment by the NEOs of incentive-based targets.
Historically in late fall, the Board approves a budget for the following operating year. As part of that budget-setting process and performance review of each executive officer, Mr. Bunger proposes compensation amounts for each executive officer made up of base salary, target bonus amounts and target dollar amount of equity awards. The Compensation Committee and the Board review the recommendations of Mr. Bunger and the performance of each of the executive officers and approve base salary, target bonus amounts and target dollar amount of equity awards for each executive officer. The approved dollar amount for equity awards is divided into grants of 50% of the approved equity amount being solely time-based vesting shares and 50% of the approved amount being both performance-based and time-based vesting.
Because the budgeting processes for fiscal 2010 and 2009 were not finalized by the end of the respective preceding years, the Compensation Committee approved the grant of the equity awards that were solely time-based vesting (i.e., 50% of each executive officers target equity grant amount) in December of those preceding years. The performance-based shares (i.e., the other 50% of each executive officers target equity grant amount) were not granted until the following January or February once the budgeting process was complete and the Compensation Committee had sufficient information to set the performance goals for that year.
As disclosed in the Companys 2010 Proxy Statement, in addition to the individual annual EBITDA targets, there is a cumulative four year performance target that applies to all shares that did not vest due to the failure to achieve yearly targets. If the sum of the cumulative EBITDA actually achieved for the four years is greater than 90% of the sum of the targets for the same four year period on a grant-by-grant basis, then shares will vest in proportion to the ratio achieved between 90% and 100%. In other words, performance shares that do not vest due to failure to achieve EBITDA targets in any given year may nevertheless vest at the end of the four-year grant period if cumulative EBITDA achieved is 90% or more of the original four-year cumulative goal.
Read the The complete Report