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 : Siebel Systems (SEBL) - strong buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hueyone who wrote (5976)	6/9/2002 8:26:34 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 6974

Hi Huey: I will agree with you on the high end. Stock options are granted much too freely to executives, hugely disporportional to their contribution. Unfortunately, unless there is a focus on some sort of cap, any changes in the law will hurt the rank-and-file. And I agree with the other poster that stated that the BODs will simply find a different way to (over) compensate the CEOs.

To: hueyone who wrote (5976)	6/10/2002 2:32:16 AM
From: Hardly B. Solipsist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6974

One point about LE's "compensation" last year is that those options were granted when ORCL was on the ropes in 1991 (I think that's when the options were granted). So saying "why did LE get paid so much last year when the company didn't do well" is a little misleading. You could say that he shouldn't have been given so much stock back in 1991 (although I'd like to see his grant compared to others from that time), but you can't argue that the company that he heads has made great strides in those intervening 10 years. Do you know when the options that Siebel sold were granted? They can't have been as far back as 1991, since his company didn't exist then. Finally, I doubt that any formula that computed an expense for LE's options back in 1991 valued them at what they turned out to be worth for him, so while you are railing about how much he made, keep in mind that the accounting change you appear to want would have underreported the expense (unless that accounting change meant no one got options, which would probably mean that ORCL would be a part of IBM today)...