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: tcmay who wrote (168067)	7/12/2002 3:04:47 PM
From: muzosi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

but i think we, the public, deserve some amount of blame in that we continued to buy stock in a e-dogfood company which wouldn't have justified its valuation if it had 10 USA dog food markets completely to itself.

To: tcmay who wrote (168067)	7/12/2002 5:35:13 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Nice summary. Of course we agree. RE:"* decrease the capital gains tax depending on how long an asset is held--this will at least partly incentivize long-term investment" Well as of Jan1 you only pay 18% capital gains (instead of 20%) on securities held 5 years or more. Of course this is no where enough of a break considering what flipping real estate can save you. Until this inequity to changed it's hard for me to see Stocks becoming any kind of investment of choice. Not to mention no faith in management. RE:"* expense stock options properly" That would definitely help confidence. I do hear rumbling about how this would drive stock prices lower. That could be screams from insiders losing their money grab. Jim

To: tcmay who wrote (168067)	7/13/2002 5:29:46 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi Tim, as an fyi, your post accurately puts the blame on founders and vc's (though I'd add institutional houses for buying what the vc's were selling) but your post neglects the reality that these two groups get mainly shares (), not options. (humor) Though, I love the concept of making investors work for their stock - put them to work and make them earn their options. Side note: during the boom, the vesting dates for employees (again, not vc's, not founders), was approximately 2 years at the height of the boom for the dotcoms. Dotcoms should have kept it at 4 years to reduce flipping by employees. But again, employees don't make up the bulk of the stock pie, so it would be unproductive to target them. Said another way, as an investor (section 83.b) in my startup, I think like an investor. Building value is the goal. That goal will be much more achievable for me to realize for our investors and for my investment, if the government doesn't negatively target my employees' options. Hardworking employees are the key to growth. Regards, Amy J () Yes, I know investor warrants are a different type of option, but they essentially can be equated to investor shares as they become this. The gov't is going after employee options, the innocent, instead of institutional houses, vc's and founders, the guilty. Go figure. [I would tend to put the blame on the institutional houses, because they're suppose to screen bad deals before they reach the public. Public buyers, which are non-accredited investors and thus legally classified as a less-informed group, can't expect to be aware, which puts the burden on brand-name institutional houses to not sell poor deals to them. ]