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 : Long Term Investors' Outpost -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimbaBear who wrote (436)	8/20/2002 10:48:46 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 562

And how would a few hundred shares owned by an investor stack up against the insiders with hundreds of thousands of shares? You don't honestly believe the average shareholder's vote has a snowball's chance of effecting any meaningful change do you? Insider ownership of cisco is 2%. Institutional ownership is 56%, with the top institution (as of this list, today) holding 3.5%, or more than the total of insiders. There are no 5% insider/owners. Therefore insiders are much less powerful than the owning institutions, I would say. moneycentral.msn.com There are lots of things about how companies run that I would like to change, its just that options are not one of them, and since the black scholes approach is not a black and white solution to the problem I can't see why it should be legislated. After all, there are lots of excesses in business which are not legislated-For example I would never buy CA or jdsu stock, not because they have an options program but because (imo) they grossly overcompensate the top mgmt who are underperforming. Its my choice to stay away from the stock, why won't that work here?