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.

Technology Stocks : Lucent Technologies (LU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chechaco who wrote (16848)	10/20/2000 4:11:58 PM
From: Jeff Jordan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21876

McGinn....sounds like a stubborn Irish.......STEP DOWN..... best news I could hear this weekend....before anyone calls me prejudice...my grandmothers name is: Molly McBride...yes, I'm stubborn...that's why I still have shares

To: chechaco who wrote (16848)	10/23/2000 6:18:42 PM
From: shoe	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 21876

Graef Crystal is a lone voice crying in the wilderness. When are we going to start howling? For a long time now, boards of directors haven't displayed the will to link CEO compensation to financial performance. I have finally concluded that state governments should change the business code to require that stockholders approve any large increases in CEO compensation, bonuses, or stock options paid during a year where the company has lost money or the company's stock has underperformed its peers by a certain percentage. Even though it is difficult to get a majority of shareholders to vote on anything, simply having this stipulation in place may restrain compensation committees from authorizing these excessive payouts. The board of directors is supposed to represent and protect the interests of the stockholders. Because these boards no longer demonstrate any interest in doing so, shareholders should be given the right to do so themselves. pjmetz