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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (2442)	8/15/2002 5:24:33 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25522

I just read AG Edwards report on AMAT. It was a BUY for aggressive accounts with a price target of 33. They expect orders to pick up. In fact, they said what Brian has been saying. If someone can remind me how to copy from Acrobat, I'll be glad to do so. BTW, I met with the CEO of AG Edwards, Mr. Bagley, and the young Mr. Edwards. Bagley was proud of how underpaid he was and he was outraged by the greed of other CEO's. Edwards is a very conservative firm. I do have a bias. My son works for them. fred

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (2442)	8/15/2002 11:19:45 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

I disagree with Mitchell's concern's about options being spread around "too democratically." When I worked for a high tech company, I received both options grants and the opportunity to buy stock at a discount. Although my job was not often on the cutting edge of the company's technology, these programs did much to help motivate me to make sure that the needs of customers were being taken care of, and furthermore induced me to stay at the company longer than I otherwise would have. I once heard that when a company loses an engineer, it costs $70,000 to find and train a replacement, and that was some years ago.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (2442)	8/16/2002 11:23:45 AM
From: Pink Minion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

>> But if a company's road to accounting profits is extended by years because of stock-option expensing — even though plenty of economic profits are rolling into the front door — they're going to find it difficult to get funding. If they reduce their options grants to boost their accounting-based bottom line, they'll have to settle for less than the best talent. This argument should be worded: "Since these companies can't con investment houses into buying their shares so they can pay their employees, they have to sucker the retail investor to pay for it".