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: RetiredNow who wrote (65069)	11/16/2003 10:18:50 AM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 77400

The article says Chambers pocketed $38.3 million Thursday selling Cisco shares as the stock hovered near 52-week highs. The only issue I have as a shareholder is "did we over or under pay?" Could we have done better for less? Would Chambers have worked any harder and given BETTER RESULTS for more money or would he have done just as good a job for 1/10th the price? As a shareholder, I want value for what I give my employees... I'm not at all fond of how my employees set the salary I pay them.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (65069)	11/16/2003 10:33:02 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

OT ... mindmeld, re "[ed: Stock grants] work just as well as options without the high cost. " The cost of stock grants might be less than, the same as, or greater than the cost of option grants, IMO. For example, if it happens that 40% of 10 million options are exercised, wouldn't the cost to existing stockholders be the same as if 4 million stock shares were granted? Their ownership would be diluted by 4 million shares in either case, wouldn't it? And, since the exercise price for nonvested stock grants is $0, wouldn't the cost of those 4 million shares of granted stock actually be greater? Stockholders' equity wouldn't increase via exercise dollars as it does for options, would it? Regards, Ron P.S. I'm ignoring tax effects here.