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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63815)	5/4/2003 9:12:45 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Lizzie, I think based on some of your posts, you may not understand what can happen if shareholders decide a stock is not worth buying anymore because all the profits go to employees and insiders. What happens is that the market for that stock can dry up and the stock price plunges as a result. Then all those insiders and employee owners end up with worthless options. So everyone loses. Smart CEOs realize that a company is like a 4-legged chair: customers, partners, employees, and shareholders. You screw one of those and you could find your ass sitting on the floor next to your stock price. Right now, shareholders are getting screwed out of profits by companies that heavily water their stock. That means one leg is getting sawed at. It won't take much to topple the chair if that leg goes.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63815)	5/5/2003 10:29:27 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 77400

Almost, but not quite. I want my capital to work for me. It started out as mine, and I'd like it to end up that way. Plus a bit, for my trouble. Is there anything wrong with that? And really, I don't care how much the employees take away. That is, as long as they make it so I take away more than I could with the same dollars elsewhere. If so, then they can help themselves to all the rest. Is that so hard to understand? Let's put responsibility where it belongs. If the employees can't make enough so that their investors get the kinds of returns they can get elsewhere, then they don't deserve to be paid the same as elsewhere either. Or perhaps the other way around: if I can pay someone $40,000 a year to make me $1.08 for every $1.00 I invest why the heck should I pay someone $140,000 a year to make me $0.88 for every $1.00 I invest? Charity? I'm better off paying 3 of those 40K dudes and giving 20K to a soup kitchen than I am supporting even one of those 140K dudes. Both economically and socially! You sound outraged by this kind of thinking. Of course I want to reap more rewards from investments that I own than I could get from investments I don't own. So I am going about the process of choosing. What did you think: I seek the lowest return possible? Sooner or later the brightest and smartest sparks in Silicon Valley are going to figure this out. It's my capital and it's not like they somehow have some righteous claim on it. If capital can get a better return somewhere else, then capital is gonna go there. And if it's Singapore or India or Malaysia or Canada... well, then that's where it goes. Shoved in the direction of greatest return by the invisible hand of Capitalism at work. Fight on my hands? LOL, that's funny. I'm speaking as an investor. Last time I looked, it was folks with business plans coming to us to ask for money, not the other way around. And the only thing they have to offer is 'return'. So when we figure we can get better somewhere else, the answer is going to be "no".. Do you really think it should be otherwise?