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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (127190)	2/26/2003 1:08:19 AM
From: mightylakers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I think there would be more than a $1 billion drop in market value. Isn't that what he's hoping for?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (127190)	2/26/2003 2:43:17 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Huey, as you've found, it isn't exactly difficult to get the data on stock options Yep, it is so easy that you still haven't been able to answer my question regarding the value of stock option compensation given to the three upper level execs that you mentioned in your post.<ggg> Leaving that aside, it seems to me that you are willing to pay Jacobs practically anything, a billion dollars in salary you said, because presumably you are sure that QCOM is going to make so much money in the future that it will dwarf almost anything that we pay Jacobs now. In other words, you are willing to incur almost any level of expense now for profits on the come. I think you are putting the cart before the horse and that is a bad way for owners to conduct business. Why pay the fellow an extra 7 or 800 million or so that you probably don’t have to pay him to get the same level of performance? I think it is absurd to pay a guy a billion dollars in salary for a company that has only produced half a billion dollars in earnings lifetime. If the company makes lots of money in the future like you expect it to, then let's tie his compensation to real profitability when the company actually makes the money, not pay him a billion dollars in salary now that is extracted from shareholders before the company has even had time to reach its stride. The man has plenty of shares, and plenty of incentive without getting another billion dollars in salary or stock options. (Note: this billion dollar figure I am using is an unconfirmed figure for stock option compensation based on the figure that you gave me. ) As far as curbing stock options, considering that in my last post I discovered that 85% of QCOM’s reported GAAP profitis for the last five years go up in smoke if we expense stock options per SFAS 123, I was considering whether there is any place we can cut unnecessary expenses. From a balance sheet, retained earnings point of view, there is barely anything left for shareholders on the table, and I would rather pay closer attention to this earnings measure to gain shareholder perspective than the perspective of what the fools in the public marketplace will pay for my shares at any given time. We need some balance between shareholder, executive and employee compensation. If there is some fat there, let’s cut it, if there isn’t, let’s not. Perhaps the upcoming changes in QCOM’s business prospects, meaning improved profitability, will help sort out this balance problem. Regards, Huey