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 (172959)	2/9/2003 8:57:42 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tim, What's your thought on the last years? Options: 2000: Barrett received 200,000 Grove received 200,000 Parker received 108,000 Otellini received 120,000 Bryant received 90,000 Vadasz received 119,650 2001: Barrett received 484,696 Grove received 384,696 Parker isn't listed. Otellini received 357,586 Bryant received 253,704 Vadasz received 335,650 wsrn.com Revenue and earnings dropped from 2000 to 2001 and the execs doubled and tripled their options? The 2002 proxy will be an interesting read in April. Steve

To: tcmay who wrote (172959)	2/9/2003 9:57:20 PM
From: Dave Budde	Respond to of 186894

"And given the way ISOs are taxed, and the recent situation where some people got wiped out by being taxed at the spread at the time of exercise even though when they sold the stock was much lower in price, it makes sense for execs to "exercise and sell." " There's a limit to the number of options that can be granted in a year to an individual. Executive options in the numbers we are seeing lately must certainly be non-qualified. So the tax treatment is different. No reason to exercise-and-hold in this case.

To: tcmay who wrote (172959)	2/9/2003 10:31:44 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 186894

"..it makes sense for execs to "exercise and sell." Any accountant or tax advisor would say this is the only sane course given the way the tax laws work. I said this a few days ago, but Carl, Dan3, Kapkan, and the other Droids just don't want to acknowledge this point." Because you have no point at all. What has escaped your attention is that there is another "sane" option: "exercise, sell a fraction to cover cost of shares and taxes, and keep the rest for further fruition". If an executive knows that the company business is solid, has no accounting tricks that could possibly affect public perception of the company performance, technology is soaring, etc,etc, why would he deprive himself of an opportunity to grow his own wealth with his company's stock price by keeping the "free shares"? No, they elected to sell off the entire batch, and took their money elsewhere. Why? I agree that there is a tax reason to sell it all, but why not to buy the own stock back? Since an executive has much better vision of the potential performance of his own company than of any other company, the risk must be much smaller, is not it? And of course, no need to remind me about diversification please. - Ali P.S. BTW, since what time did Carl become a Droid?