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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (57670)	2/19/2002 1:21:43 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Excellent point! As a shareholder, I would very much prefer that Cisco increase all salaries above the board to the 100th percentile than continue in this stock dilution scheme. Ultimately, as a shareholder I will get a heck of a lot more bang for my invested dollar. I get happy employees who will count a bird in hand as better than one in the bush. I get a company who's values are aligned with increasing economic value of the invested capital, rather than in playing sleight of hand games. Lastly, I get a company that doesn't water my stock to pay employees a lot of my money. There you have it. Great company and franchise, but needs compensation restructuring. The only way we'll get that is if shareholders vote down the next stock option grant plan. Who here actually uses their proxies to vote? I bet not many of you. Even if all individuals voted it down, I wonder how the institutions would vote?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (57670)	2/19/2002 1:58:42 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Good point. Mindmeld addressed fairly well. I'm not against competitive compensation. I'm against paying someone $300K (salary + options) and being measured financially as if I'm only paying them $150K (salary) & getting a 50K tax credit from the IRS to net out to effective salary of $100K. If a business is only profitable if it can employ folks for $100K but it really takes $300K to do the job, then as a shareholder I'd rather not touch it with a ten foot pole. Furthermore, if I somehow was to become a shareholder of a business where employment cost is actually $300K and I found out that management was complicit (even passively, through inaction) of duping me into thinking the cost was $100K... well I'd be livid. At me as much as at them. Buyer beware. But if I then heard they were actively lobbying lawmakers to keep me & folks like me happily in the dark (in the guise of avoiding shadows cast by bright illumination)... well, then I'd be asking for their heads. Particularly if they were the beneficial recipients. But that's just my opinion. John