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 : EMC How high can it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gus who wrote (14910)	5/8/2003 3:47:08 PM
From: JDN	Respond to of 17183

Dear Gus: I realize that truly extraordinary top management brilliance is rare, however, if you look at the big picture it seems to me THEY ALL feel they belong in that RARITY. Personally, I now vote NO on every single stock option or executive renumeration change that comes along. I know my vote is relatively meaningless, but if enough of us would only do that we might at least generate some attention. This also would be a good election issue in my mind. jdn

To: Gus who wrote (14910)	5/12/2003 10:53:27 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

Gus, Yes, I know compensation "consultants" (more like compensation "sophist" hired guns (i.e., the CEO says, I want to make $100 billion, you find a way to rationalize it, with an implied, you'll get your 5% cut) point to increases in market cap as a rationale for outlandish salaries as if it makes sense. But considering that studies show that most increases in market cap are due to bull markets not to company specific events or management brilliance, these arguments are ingenuous at best. And further considering that when the market cap goes down the executives rarely give any of their previous gains back, or even suffer much of a penalty (unless you consider "only" making a couple of million instead of tens of millions a penalty), the arguments become specious. Sure they occasionally get "fired", but so do workers who make far far less, and have far far less of a cushion to fall back on in hard times (not even considering the obscene golden parachutes that the execs get so that their precious "egos" can heal). We seem to have totally lost sight of the fact that the first $30-40,000 are the most important dollars that anyone earns. And beyond some number that is hard at best to calculate in either inflationary times or in times like this of a housing bubble for expensive show-case mansions, each dollar becomes increasingly less important except for prestige reasons. Prestige dollars, in a sensibly organized society, should pale next to necessity dollars, IMHO. Sam