Reprographics 101

Article that just appeared on CNN Money:

Existing home sales drop 3.8%

By Ben Rooney, June 21, 2011: 10:51 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Sales of existing homes fell in May, as severe weather and high gas prices weighed on the shaky housing market.

Home sales fell 3.8% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.81 million, down from a revised rate of 5 million in April, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday.

Sales were more than 15% lower than in May 2010.

Economists had expected a May sales rate of 4.79 million existing homes, according to consensus estimates from Briefing.com.

“Spiking gasoline prices along with widespread severe weather hurt house shopping in April, leading to soft figures for actual closings in May,” said NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun.

Gas prices surged earlier this year, pinching household budgets and putting a damper on consumer spending. In addition, sales were hurt by tornados and flooding in May that devastated parts of the South and Midwest.

Sales fell more than 6% in the South and were down over 5% in the Midwest. By contrast, sales fell 2.5% in the Northeast and were flat in the West.

Yun called the drop in May sales “disappointing,” but he expects the market to pick up in the second half of the year, given the recent decline in gas prices.

NAR also said that the national median price for existing homes of all types fell 4.6% in May to $166,500.

House hunting: Is this the best time to buy?

While sales had stabilized somewhat earlier this year, the market for existing homes has been working through a glut of foreclosed properties for years — a trend that has weighed on prices.

In May, distressed homes accounted for 31% of all sales, which typically sell for about 20% less than homes that aren’t in foreclosure, according to NAR.

Yun said the long and painful drop in home prices “could be diminishing” as some buyers look to take advantage of what he called the highest affordability conditions in 40 years.

He warned, however, that existing home sales are being held back by “restrictive loan underwriting standards.”

“There’s been a pendulum swing from very loose standards which led to the housing boom to unnecessarily restrictive practices as an overreaction to the housing correction — this overreaction is clearly holding back the recovery,” said Yun.

I read this article (see below in blue type) in the Boston Globe (June 20, 2011). It’s simply another article that managed – excuse my French – to piss me off.

Let’s continue to favor banks and get them healthier, while many small and medium size businesses – and savers – are left to continue sucking wind.

Ever since the beginning of the “crisis”, Fed Policy has been to keep interest rates ultra low. Without question, that policy has served to rape seniors (seniors who live on interest income) – and that policy continues to rape seniors. I’m a senior, ugh.

One of the reasons for getting banks healthy – was so that they would “lend” to businesses. If you are a small or medium size business, have you been able to borrow from the bank? And, if so, have you been able to borrow on reasonable terms? I’d certainly appreciate hearing from reprographers on that point. Have you applied for a bank loan during the past 2 years, and, if so, what was the result?

In the article below, there’s one paragraph, in particular, that I’m going to highlight, and that’s the one immediately below – – – and, to me, the “key word” in the following paragraph, is the word “encourage.”

“The purpose of the [Small Business Lending Fund] is to encourage Main Street banks and small businesses to work together to help create jobs and promote economic growth,’’ said Colleen Murray, a Treasury Department spokeswoman.

Giving money to banks on very favorable terms to “encourage” them to lend money to small businesses is not the same thing as saying to the banks, “you MUST make loans to small businesses, and, if you don’t, you’ll have to pay penalties on the money we loaned you.”

I think the government (the administration and congress, acting together, idiotically) should offer to loan billions of dollars to the healthcare insurance companies – at very low interest rates – to “encourage” the healthcare insurance companies to lower premiums.

Come to think of it, why doesn’t the Federal Government just lend money – directly to me – at 1% interest, so I can go out and invest that money in CD’s that pay 3%. I’d like several billion dollars. How about it?

Here’s the article that was in yesterday’s Boston Globe….

“Banks tap fund to repay TARP”

US program has fewer restrictions; critics call switch another bailout

Hundreds of small banks that received US aid after the financial crisis appear to have found a creative way to repay the funds: obtain money from a different government program.

Most of the 627 banks that still hold money from the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, have filed applications to roll the obligations into the government’s new Small Business Lending Fund, according to Treasury officials and the banks.

That includes at least two Massachusetts banks, Mercantile Capital Corp. in Boston and Central Co-operative Bank in Somerville.

TARP was widely tarred as a bailout for greedy banks, but the $30 billion small business lending program does not carry the same baggage. The new program would let many TARP recipients sharply reduce dividend payments to the government, while no longer facing strict restrictions on executive compensation.

“It’s a great deal’’ for banks, said Linus Wilson, assistant professor of finance at the University of Louisiana Lafayette, who has been tracking the programs. “The Small Business Lending Fund does not have the stigma that the TARP does.’’

For instance, Mercantile Capital, the parent of Mercantile Bank in Boston, has applied for more than $4 million in funding from the new program to replace the $3.5 million it received through TARP. The bank said it expects the funds to cost just 1 percent a year under the new small business lending program, compared to the 5 percent it pays now (and 9 percent in 2014) under TARP.

“It makes all the sense in the world’’ to switch, said Charles Monaghan, the bank’s chief executive.

TARP was created under the Bush administration in the midst of the financial crisis three years ago to pump capital into the financial system to allay fears the system might collapse. The Obama administration and Congress created the Small Business Lending Fund to increase lending by small and mid-size banks.

“The purpose of the [Small Business Lending Fund] is to encourage Main Street banks and small businesses to work together to help create jobs and promote economic growth,’’ said Colleen Murray, a Treasury Department spokeswoman.

But critics have derided the program as another bailout, nicknaming it TARP Jr. or Son of TARP.

At a hearing in May, Republican Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine questioned whether it was proving “largely to be a new TARP refinancing program.’’

The Treasury Department, which plans to begin approving applications for the program as early as next month, said it received 847 applications, including 315 from banks still holding TARP money.

Banks are not allowed to participate in both TARP and the small business fund at the same time, but the government told banks they could roll their TARP debt into the new program.

In some cases, banks could even qualify for more money than under TARP.

“Whether by intent or design, it is really turning into little more than a bailout of TARP,’’ said Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and now a senior fellow at New York University School of Law. “It’s a rebranding of the same thing.’’

Initially, banks would pay up to 5 percent dividends under the new program, the same amount they pay under TARP. But banks that increase their lending by 10 percent from June 2010 will qualify for rates as low as 1 percent.

Some banks, such as Mercantile, would already qualify for the 1 percent rate because they have already boosted their lending over the past year. If banks can’t increase their lending, however, the rate will go up to 7 percent after 2 years and 9 percent after 4 ½ years.

Most of the biggest banks, such as Bank of America, have already repaid the government with significant dividends and other premiums. But hundreds of smaller banks have been stuck in TARP because they have had a harder time raising outside capital. At the end of May, 627 banks, including four community banks in Massachusetts, held about $22 billion.

Many small banks have also been reluctant to pay back the government, either because they need the extra capital to maintain lending or want extra reserves in case the economy worsens.

“We’re afraid of the double dip,’’ said William Morrissey, president of Central Co-operative Bank, which has applied for $10 million from the Small Business Lending Fund, the same amount it received under TARP.

Not every bank is eligible for the new lending program, which is limited to small and mid-size banks with less than $10 billion in assets. And banks won’t be eligible if they are not current on TARP payments, have missed multiple payments, or are on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s list of troubled banks.

That includes OneUnited Bank in Boston, which has missed nine straight dividend payments. OneUnited received $12 million from the government in 2008 after intervention by US representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Maxine Waters of California, both Democrats.

Another TARP recipient, the parent of Clinton Savings Bank, declined to say whether it has applied for the small business lending fund.

Chief executive Robert J. Paulhus Jr. said in a statement that the institution, which received $12 million through TARP, is examining its options.

Todd Wallack can be reached at twallack@globe.com.

In a previous post on Reprographics 101, I mentioned that an investment company, Stadium Capital Management, is a very large shareholder in American Reprographics Co (ARC). (You can find previous posts that mentioned Stadium Capital Management by using the search box-window on this blog-site.)

Apparently, Stadium Capital Management has made other big bets that the construction industry will, at some point in the future, experience a robust rebound. That will happen, at some point in time, but the big question is, “when will that happen.”

Stadium Capital Management (at least as of March 31, 2011) was a very, very significant shareholder in Builders First Source – Stadium Capital Management reportedly owned (at least as of date above) 15.3% of the total outstanding stock of Builders First Source.

BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE INC Profile


Builders First Source, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLDR), is a leading supplier and manufacturer of structural and related building products for residential new construction in the United States

If you’re a new homebuilder, Builders First Source wants you to look no further. The company sells hardware and doors, windows, lumber, and other structural building products to construction professionals. Customers have included D.R. Horton and Hovnanian Enterprises. Builders First Source has grown through acquisitions to operate about 55 distribution centers and 50 manufacturing plants in nearly 15 states. The company was founded in 1998 as BSL Holdings by a management team headed by former CEO John Roach and private investment firm JLL Partners. Affiliates of JLL and private equity firm Warburg Pincus own about 50% of Builders First Source’s stock.

Hopefully (for Stadium Capital Management), they purchased their shares in Builders First Source when Builders First Source shares were trading at very low prices.

Take a look at this!

On Feb 17, 2006, Builders First Source shares traded at $24.10 per share.

When I looked up a quote for that stock today, June 20, 2011), it was trading at around $2.13 per share.

Builders First Source has two other very, very significant shareholders; Warburg Pincus, LLC and JLL Fund. It looks like one of those significant shareholders has not done very well on its ownership of Builders First Source shares, and I say that because of an article I found, from Feb 2006, about Warburg Pincus’ purchase of a significant stake in Builders First Source.

Warburg Pincus and New JLL Fund to Acquire Significant Interests in Builders FirstSource

DALLAS, Feb 06, 2006 — Builders FirstSource, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLDR), a leading supplier and manufacturer of structural and related building products for residential new construction in the United States, today announced that Warburg Pincus LLC, through its affiliate, Warburg Pincus Private Equity IX, L.P., an $8 billion dollar global private equity fund, has agreed to acquire a 26.2 percent beneficial ownership interest in the company from JLL Partners. Additionally, JLL Partners Fund V, L.P., a new JLL fund, will acquire the remaining 26.2 percent beneficial ownership interest in Builders FirstSource currently held by other funds controlled by JLL. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions (including Hart-Scott- Rodino clearance) and is expected to close during the first quarter of 2006.

I’ve put in my Google Docs library an Excel file that shows the company’s major shareholders; you can find that file at this link:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B81al4kFAU9JODExOTFiY2UtMzU3MC00NzJlLWI0N2QtZThjOWI1NTFhN2Rh&hl=en_US&authkey=CJG_maAC

I don’t know what price Warburg Pincus paid for its shares in Builders First Source, but, on Feb 17, 2006, eleven days after the article was published, Builders First Source shares were trading at $24.10 per share. Like I said earlier, Builders First Source shares were trading at around $2.13 per share this morning!

Builders First Source appears to be doing quite lousy, financially speaking. According to information I reviewed on Google Finance this morning, Builders First Source has lost money every year for the past four years. Total losses over the past four years have amounted to approximately $320 million!

Sales history:

2007 – $1.468 bil

2008 – $992 mil

2009 – $678 mil

2010 – $700 mil

Sales for Q1 2011 were about the same as Sales in Q1 2010, so it does look like sales have hit bottom. Perhaps a recovery will start from here?

Although Builders First Source has reported losses for the four past years, and lost money in Q1 2011 as well, the officer/managers of Builders First Source are definitely NOT shy about pulling compensation out of the company! For 2010, the company’s 5 most highly compensated officer/managers pulled just over $7.2 million in total compensation! And total compensation paid in 2010 was, apparently, higher than total compensation paid in 2009.

I’ve put in my Google Docs library an Excel file that shows this compensation; you can find that file at this link:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B81al4kFAU9JNWUwYTA2ZDgtMDc3MC00ZDJmLWJjZDgtN2YwODcxYWFlMjUy&hl=en_US&authkey=CIuZh7UK

To end this post, I’ve included part of the section from the company’s recent Proxy Statement that explained “executive compensation”:

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND OTHER INFORMATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Overview

In the discussion that follows, we will give an overview and analysis of our compensation program and policies, the material compensation decisions we have made under those programs and policies with respect to our top executive officers, and the material factors that we considered in making those decisions. The persons who served as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer during 2010, as well as the other individuals named in the “Summary Compensation Table,” are referred to as the “named executive officers” or

“NEOs” throughout this Proxy Statement.

Executive Summary

As for most companies in the housing industry, the past several years have been a very challenging period for us. Due to the ongoing housing downturn, our Company incurred significant operating losses in 2008 and 2009, which adversely affected our liquidity and financial position. In light of these circumstances and the ongoing weak housing market, the Company implemented and successfully closed a rights offering and debt exchange in January 2010, which allowed the Company to reduce its debt by $130 million and provided us with substantial additional cash to fund operations. While the rights offering and debt exchange provided us with additional liquidity and improved our financial flexibility, the Company continued to face a struggling housing market in 2010. In this environment, our Compensation Committee made some important decisions regarding executive compensation during 2010, including the following:

• Based on senior management’s recommendation, the Compensation Committee and the Board decided to continue a company-wide freeze on salaries, including those of our executive officers, during 2010, as part of the Company’s ongoing expense reduction program.

• The Compensation Committee and the Board decided to continue the basic company-wide performance-based annual incentive bonus program that was in effect for 2008 and 2009, which we refer to as the Management Incentive Plan. This program, which was adopted in response to the industry downturn, focuses on maximizing current year profitability. The Company did not meet the earnings goals under the 2010 Management Incentive Plan, and therefore the NEOs did not receive any financial performance incentive payment for 2010.

• In a departure from the 2009 bonus program, the Committee decided to include a discretionary bonus opportunity in the 2010 Management Incentive Plan in order to retain and incentivize key managers. The Committee determined that our NEOs would be eligible for a maximum discretionary bonus of up to 25% of their base salary. However, at the time of adopting the Plan, the Committee determined that payment of discretionary bonuses for 2010 would be contingent not only on the performance of our executives, but also on the condition of the housing market during the year and the Company’s liquidity position at the end of the year. In early 2011, the Committee and the Board, in accordance with senior management’s recommendation, decided that no discretionary bonus payments would be made to our executives for performance during 2010.

Well, this guy thinks things are getting better.

If that’s really the case, then why are home builders not feeling good about the current situation in the residential construction industry?

Housing Shows Signs of Life

June 17, 2011 * post on SeekingAlpha by Markos Kaminis

The detractors of the real estate market have enjoyed complaining about the downturn for about as long as they had bought into the bubble. No matter what I say or write, they will continue to point to every negative factor that weighs on the housing market. Only when growth materializes and it is announced and reconfirmed within the popular press will the naysayers change their tune. Well, voila! I present housing growth!

Thursday’s release of the May Housing Starts data – (pdf) offered a clear message; it was a message of transition. That’s because as you look across the data points within the government’s release, from past to present to forward looking, there is a clear trend illustrating improvement. First, let’s examine the past. Housing Completions posted only a slight increase of 0.4% over April, to an annual rate of 544K. Still, Completions were dramatically (22.5%) lower than last year’s comparable period. So there was little month-over-month growth and significantly deteriorated year-over-year change, thus feeding the fodder of the housing hounds, who I am sure are thrilled to be the theme of this article (looking forward to your comments friends). We should note that single-family completions (excluding multi-family structures) increased 2.9% over April. Thus, even in the past activity we see the beginnings of growth as it materializes in sequential month comparisons.

As we move into the present, examining Housing Starts, we see 3.5% monthly growth to a rate of 560K in May. Not only did Housing Starts exceed April’s pace, but they exceeded the economists’ consensus estimate for 547K starts as well. That said, it’s the yearly comparisons that the hounds holler about, and Starts were still 3.4% below the prior year rate of 580K. You’ll recall that last year’s activity got a boost from the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit, which I’m sure you are getting tired of hearing about. Well, good news, the tax credit will no longer come into play moving forward. Likewise though hounds, housing growth will begin on a year-over-year basis. Before we move forward to the latest evidence that this prediction is coming true, we should note that single-family housing starts rose 3.7% above April’s rate.

This is the best news of all. Housing units authorized by permits, which represent future housing starts and the revival of the housing market, increased 8.7% in April to an annual rate of 612K. Permits for single-family homes also increased by 2.5% to 405K in April. Now, unlike with Starts and Completions, permitting activity improved 5.2% over May of 2010. Voila! Housing growth!

This means that over the months ahead, we should see housing starts and housing completions begin to post year-over-year growth rates. It’s not a difficult task either, given that the absolute level of activity was pitiful in the second half of last year. Still, it marks a change for the real estate market and looks strong enough to compile full year growth for 2011. So, just as I outlined yesterday, the shares of homebuilders are rejoicing early. Toll Brothers (NYSE: TOL) was up 1.3% deep into afternoon trading, with Hovnanian (NYSE: HOV) up 3.6%, Pulte Homes (NYSE: PHM) up 1.6%, D.R. Horton (NYSE: DHI) up 2.3% and K.B. Homes (NYSE: KBH) up 1.7%. Voila!

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

Recently, I did a post on this blog-site about “exit strategy”, basically posing this question to reprographers, “do you have one …. or have you not yet gotten around to figuring out what your exit strategy is going be?”

I remarked the other day, to a new young friend who is “kinda” involved in the “printing and graphics industry”, that I’m now “so old” that it won’t be too long before GRANDCHILDREN, of reprographics business owners I met when we are all still fairly young, assume CEO positions that were previously held by their grandfathers and fathers (or, to be politically correct, by their grandmothers and mothers.) Businesses that are being transferred from one generation to another don’t spend much time on “external” exit strategy development, but you can be sure that there are lots of “internal” discussions about how grandpa and dad are going to “be retired” (be comfortably retired, hopefully) so that the next generation can assume command.

Anyway, this post (the one below) is actually related to external “exit strategy” development. Sometimes, exit strategies are “long term” plays. Someone recently asked me, “why did Mohan retire from ARC?” My response, “well, he’s not totally retired from ARC, he still owns a lot of ARC stock, but, for the most part, he is retired from active management, and that’s because he planned his exit strategy well in advance of actually activating it. He would not have resigned from active management if he had not wanted to retire from “active duty” the business.”

Many younger reprographers are not aware of how ARC’s management team positioned ARC to grow, early on in ARC’s development. So, for that reason, I decided to publish this post as kind of a “history lesson” for younger reprographers.

When I first met Mohan (in Oct 1988, when I was out visiting in L.A.), J.C. Smith, the then owner of Ford Graphics (Oct 1988), introduced Mohan as his relatively “new” CFO. At some point not too long after that, Mohan purchased the company and J.C. Smith retired from the business. (Perhaps Suri was already Mohan’s partner at that point in time, but I’m not sure about that.) One of the early large acquisitions that Ford Graphics completed was the acquisition of OCB Reprographics. That acquisition was completed with the financial assistance of Bill Thomas (yes, the same Bill Thomas who, together with his family, owns Thomas Reprographics.)

After completing 5 (yes, only 5) acquisitions (see below), ARC’s owners made a very big decision, one that later proved to be an amazingly wise decision for ARC’s owners. They sold off half of their shares to ZS Fund, a private equity group. ZS Fund helped ARC grow significantly over the next few years. ZS Fund cashed out (exercised its exit strategy) when it sold its interests in ARC to Code Hennessy & Simons, another, larger private equity group. It was Code Hennessy & Simons that helped ARC go public. Code Hennessy & Simons, for the most part, exercised its exit strategy (pretty much) in two phases – first phase was ARC’s IPO, second phase was the secondary offering ARC completed (when ARC’s shares were around $32!)

Okay, so without further commentary, here’s a “look back” at some of ARC’s development history…..

From the web-site of ………… ZS Fund, LP We are a private equity firm engaged in making long-term investments in successful middle-market companies. Since 1985, we have focused on transactions that provide liquidity to business owners while enabling them to maintain a significant ownership stake and keep their company independent. Our strengths are understanding the objectives of business owners, structuring transactions that respond to these objectives, and being constructive partners to help increase the value of the businesses in which we invest. It May Be Time For A Change. How It Happens Is Your Choice. For years your business has been your life. You have invested endless hours building it, managing it and doing everything within your power to guide it toward success. You want to continue to build your business; however, there are estate, liquidity and/or shareholder issues that have led you to conclude that you must do something to take care of yourself, your family and your business. Example of Industry Consolidations: Over a nine year period, the principals of what is now American Reprographics Company (“ARC”) acquired majority interests in five west coast reprographics companies using their own capital as well as loans which they personally guaranteed. Recognizing the benefits of scale and having been successful in their prior acquisition efforts, the principals were eager to lead a consolidation of the fragmented reprographics industry. However, the principals did not have the resources to lead the consolidation independently and thus considered seeking an experienced partner. ZS structured a transaction whereby the principals received a substantial amount of cash, some notes, and a 50% ownership stake in ARC, a newly-formed company which purchased the five predecessor companies. In addition, the principals were relieved of their personal guarantees and had the ability to earn additional consideration based upon ARC’s post-closing performance. ZS provided the necessary equity capital and arranged for bank financing to allow the Company to continue making acquisitions. In fact, over the ensuing 30 months, ZS helped ARC acquire 38 companies and grow its revenues from $75 million to $300 million. During that time period, management significantly improved the operating margins of the acquired companies and continued to grow the business internally. ZS and the principals then structured a second recapitalization in which management received additional liquidity (greater than two times the original amount) without selling any of their equity, and ZS sold substantially all of its ownership interest to a new private equity firm chosen by management. Each of the recapitalizations were “win-win” situations from the perspective of both ZS and the principals.

1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036


Phone 212/398-6200 Fax 212/398-1808
contact@zsfundlp.com

Over the past three or four weeks, I’ve received the same e-mail –from different people – about “how to fix congress”, or, as the e-mail puts it, the call for a Congressional Reform Act. Perhaps you, too, have received this same e-mail.

Here’s how that e-mail goes. (While I agree with all that’s said, I seriously doubt we’ll see this happen.)

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

It is time. If you agree, send it to 20 people good and true. If you disagree, please delete it. Thanks.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified!

Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971…before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land…all because of public pressure..

I’m asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.

AND, NOW FOR A BIT OF BREAKING NEWS…..

Now that he’s resigned from Congress, Anthony Weiner – our favorite weiner – has agreed to sign on with Twitter as its lead-trainer for technically challenged twitterers. His reported Twitter salary, benefits and stock options package is 12x more than he made as a U.S. Congressman. Not bad for a twit (or, was that a tweet?)