Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: porkbay who wrote (21731)	3/30/2000 11:57:00 AM
From: Dinesh	Respond to of 54805

porkboy True. Issuing stock options would actually have added to the cash flow. But there is always the other side of a coin, and the fun lies in discovering which one is less evil. Issuing stock dilutes ownership and per share numbers. The low-end of gain is typically very concrete in a bonus tied to stock performance while the upper-end is unlimited (all to the gain of the employee but to the detriment of the company). My conjecture is that that's what the duo wanted but couldn't get. Within the framework of CA's case, the board did us a favor. There are many examples of hi-tech companies where the stock has fallen sufficiently to render employee options meaningless (and even be a dis-incentive to some extent) the boards have been very reluctant to reset the options. Instead they try some cash bonuses etc. Regards Dinesh