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: Amy J who wrote (172706)	1/30/2003 11:40:23 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

The primary legitimate area of concern is that in most cases, investors were lied to in a way. When the compensation packages started to get really extreme in the 90's, the justification was that management was taking the risk alongside the shareholders, and the only reason management were doing so well was because shareholders were doing well. Lo and behold, shareholders stopped doing so well, and yet management continues to reap outsized rewards. And that's wrong. With the notable exceptions of Microsoft (who never really let management compensation get out of control) and Cisco (who compensated executives well in the bubble but cut them back sharply when the bubble ended), most of the rest of Silicon Valley is guilty to some extent. And while Intel certainly isn't the worst, they aren't exactly clean, either.

To: Amy J who wrote (172706)	1/30/2003 5:00:06 PM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 186894

re: Stock options Most things are pretty standard. And your post implied they weren't standard, when in fact, they are. I think options in the industry are granted according to industry norms. Industry standards? Fixed stock option pool? I respectfully disagree; I think it is a moving target mostly in one direction---up. Please kindly consider the following data points: 1. That stock option overhang ((a measure of outstanding options plus options authorized)/shares outstanding), has doubled over the last decade: businessweek.com 2. That stock option overhang has almost quadrupled since 1984: ceonewswire.net 3. That CEO pay buoyed by steadily increasing options grants has grown from 40 times the average workers pay in 1980 to roughly 515 times the average workers pay by 2000: e-insite.net. 4. That the pace of rising CEO pay has accelerated in the last decade, moving from 100 times the average workers pay in the company to over 500 times the average workers pay during the 1989 to 2000 year period: levin.senate.gov 5. That the value of stock options grants, partially due to increasing grants of options, has increased twelve fold since 1993: marketwatch.com. 6. That the average stock option overhang for tech companies now far exceeds even what liberal minded compensation consultants would say is an optimal level to increase shareholder value: cfo.com 7. And that far from being any standards, some companies, like Siebel systems for example, have stock options overhang that are triple that of the average tech company: Message 18491021 Precisely because there is no accounting for stock options, there are no standards. And the degree of stock option abuse is both increasing and accelerating imho. Regards, Huey