Duke,
re: And it may be that Barrett's role is in flawless production, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE IN THE TWO YEARS BEFORE HE TOOK OVER, and which is absolutely necessary to bring the itanium concept to fruition.
It's not just Barrett. There were 10 other people on that list. And the list of those that get huge options grants is a lot longer. These guys are not managing the company through a period of huge growth, they are managing the company through a period of no growth. IMHO it's OK to make these guys rich, but it's not OK to make them filthy rich. Reward them when and if they reward the stockholders / risk takers.
As to Barrett's performance, he was the guy that bought (with ~11$B in shareholder money), and killed, dozens of companies. Companies that bled huge Intel losses for years; the losses came right off the top of semiconductor profits. He's the guy that took his eye off the core business, and let AMD, with it's meager resources, "catch up" to Intel. To his credit, he seems to have learned from that experience.
I have no opinion on expensing stock options, one way or the other. Good arguments on both sides. I do have an opinion on paying decent managers as if they were royalty. If these guys are each so multi-million dollars great, why have I lost so much money under their leadership?
John |
