hmm, sounds good to me, most of these proposals seem more positive than negative, I'm glad to see that.
This sounds outstanding (except for the hard salary limit, should be a ratio), from Joe Lieberman.
Requires half of the company's stock options to go to employees earning $90,000 or less in order for companies to get a tax deduction on options.
Because the problem is at the top, and when you get companies that are fair wrt options at the mid levels, they tend to become the most successful companies. Cisco and msft I know are 2 of those.
I don't like the sound of this,
July 30, 2002: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduces S. 2822 "Prevention of Stock Option Abuse Act";
"To prevent publicly traded corporations from issuing stock options to top management in a manner that is detrimental to the long-term interests of shareholders."
I have had a few discussions with mostly financial people on SI about options expensing. This "interest of the shareholders" theme is troubling to me. I don't know if my sampling is flawed due to this bear mkt, or typical. There are a whole host of shareholders who feel that every cent that a cash flow positive company generates should be paid out to the shareholders in the form of a dividend. If you do that for a company like Dell, a few quarters later you have made Dell into a compaq. Its very short term thinking, but common. One guy on the oracle thread lately said oracle should cut employees drastically because the cash used in operations "should be distributed to shareholders".
Shareholder interests should be considered but shareholders can pillage companies if allowed to do so just like the executives in some cases have, shades of the movie Wall Street.
Lizzie |
