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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (6137)	5/21/2003 11:31:54 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25522

I don't see how paying him to buy the shares and then paying the taxes on the original amount and the tax amount is an improvement. In both cases he gets the stock for nothing and in your case the company pays up front tax costs. Cary, perhaps you have just shown that you don't understand the option issue? You and I paid the $4.1M cost to Splinter not AMAT. This is what Buffett and others are crying FOUL over! AMAT could have paid Splinter $5B the same way and it would not show on the balance sheet today as an expense, but you and I would be poorer due to future dillution. Options are a SHAREHOLDER expense, not a company expense. Salary should be paid out of petty cash. PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES can be paid by shareholders but if they keep this sort of monkey business up, it will go away and there will be little motivation for people to work hard in the Silicon Valley and you can kiss goodbye to 50% of your homes value as the jobs will all go to China or countries that understand this.