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: Mike Buckley who wrote (5997)	6/11/2002 8:56:16 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6974

Maybe, but I think their egos make them overestimate their true worth to an organization as a whole.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (5997)	6/11/2002 9:54:40 AM
From: chojiro	Respond to of 6974

If Tom Siebel were to say to the shareholders that either he gets paid $150 million per year or he walks, what do you think the reaction would be? I think they would look over the balance sheet And probably reconsider their long positions But I'm bias I think that it might be trading closer to $5 than $20 by the end of the year. Of course I've been wrong many times in the past so I may be wrong here

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (5997)	6/11/2002 10:24:24 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6974

If Tom Siebel were to say to the shareholders that either he gets paid $150 million per year or he walks, what do you think the reaction would be? I know what this shareholder's reaction would be: "Give him his gold watch and send him on his way". But how did we arrive at the (hypothetical) juncture above where a shareholder like me would decide a man of tremendous talent like Tom Siebel is no longer working in my interests as a shareholder? It can all be laid at the foot of the false (but legal) accounting. This accounting loophole, which otherwise fine folk like Tom Siebel cannot resist exploiting, has had the effect of misaligning employee interests with investor/shareholder interests--- pitting the two against each other. False accounting has corrupted the purpose of employee stock options. This unexpected consequence is all the more ironic considering that employee stock options were envisioned to accomplish the opposite---that is to align employee interests with investor/shareholder interests. Employee stock options can still accomplish their purpose, be we have to close the accounting loophole in order for them to work. Best, Huey