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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (47707)	2/1/2001 11:02:24 AM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Now your also arguing against that same Harvard piece. GV... you can't have it both ways. One can not suggest that incentives do not cause employee's to change patterns and then say that if there are none that they will.. OG

To: GVTucker who wrote (47707)	2/1/2001 11:05:04 AM
From: Dave	Respond to of 77400

GVTucker, What you say makes sense. Therefore, if the employee risks too much and the company falters, the stock drops, shareholders lose, employee(s) lose their options (perhaps their job(s) in layoff), and their options expire worthless. However, if an employee does not own stock in the company, or options for that matter, the company has an agency problem. Therefore, the employee may not be doing what is best for the company... I guess there is a happy medium....