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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (166785)	6/21/2002 3:54:53 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Duke, RE: "likened eso to cash bonuses" Options are not like cash bonuses and here's why: Cash bonuses are take-it-and-run vehicles (among other things that I take issue with), while options vest over time and have value only if they build value. Getting back to the point of my previous post, if A = Options and B = Cash Bonuses, the point I'm making is: a) Buffett accuses A of being at fault but ignores B. That observation is my point. (That's independent upon whether you can validly argue whether A and B are at fault, which I think was your point about not to dish bonuses to win the argument against options. Okay, got it. If not, just PM me.) b) Buffett discounts positive motivation and the role options play in this and innovation. c) Buffett doesn't understand high-tech. RE: "I pointed out that cash bonuses are not only not fraud they are disclosed." We're in agreement, so there's no need to repeat this sentence a third time. RE: Buffett Buffett has issue with options period. I've read a lot on his position going back to the early 90's too (and am not going to waste the time to dig it up) but his dislike for options expands way beyond what you mentioned. Buffett dislikes options as much as he dislikes innovation and high-tech. Regards, Amy J

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (166785)	6/21/2002 5:32:12 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Duke, RE: "Someone at Enron was fraudulent [supposively] through cash bonus" --------------- Oops, I just saw my error in that paragraph. I should have said, 'supposively' through. I see why you took issue with it as it was written (not intended). When I type fast, I can get sloppy on tangentials. That error changed the meaning away from my point which was: It's illogical for the Greenspan/Buffett/etc. to blame A while ignoring B, unless the composition of A and B are different in ways that would justify this, which it doesn't. (In fact, my follow-on point is that A, options, is actually better tool for growth than B, cash bonsues.) Regards, Amy J