GV, it's been several years since I looked at this so my post wasn't accurate, but recall concluding a long time ago if you do it your way the problem is there's a double counting. This is where you and I see it differently.
But we agreed it would be a concern if the global perceptions around the USA stock market were bad. Haven't heard investors overseas complain about stock options like we do here, which isn't to invalidate the concern.
Shannon's post about shifting piles of money is true, but historically bonuses and "other gifts" historically have been where the most hidden absues are, which is why I've always felt options is the best of all piles for enforcing gains to be aligned with shareholders and still do. Sure, I do believe a few small tweeks could prevent incongruencies with options that get created by bubbles, for example, by having a rule that says the option gain gets voided if the company goes down the tank. Put a portion of the executives portion of the gains in escrow and yank it back if the stock tumbles after a bubble. Alternatively, require an exec to hold onto 25% of their options, or something similar to minimize incongruencies. But if we go back to the old day model of "other gifts", we're asking for hidden piles of money. At least with options, it's more visible.
Regards,
Amy J |
