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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave who wrote (176325)	12/30/2003 5:25:29 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 186894

I think a better example of a company who became dominant due in large part to options is Cisco.

To: Dave who wrote (176325)	12/30/2003 11:46:12 PM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi Dave, RE: "Those are the three keys that launched Intel to where it is today." Wasn't it Grove who said that Intel was successful also because of its employees, and didn't they point to a Rutgers study showing that companies with broad-based plans perform better than others. RE: "Stock options are a source of economic dilution to a company's investors." We agree on this point - the most important point we see in the same. And rather than attacking a tool to be used properly, I'd prefer to see the dilution clearly presented in the financials (maybe prefer if they used 5 years of stock option data rather than just the 3 years they use) but what's also important to me is to see a press release articulating the stock the officers get every year, total corp, as well as the top/low employee salary ratio (this is what the nuns are asking Cisco to do, sorry forget their names.) I'll see a press release before I'll see the financials. RE: "Stock options have a cost associated with them, plain and simple." Yes, I would like to see the dilution and # of options displayed, probably with the later on a 5 year basis. RE: "By requiring all companies to expense stock options, this may lead companies to be not as charitable which will increase shareholder value." No, it'll probably drive down shareholder value, according to (I believe it was) the Rutger's report. RE: "As far as I can tell" Do you know any hightech board of directors on public companies? RE: "will prevent is the excesses that happened in the late 1990's and early 2000's." A better way to fix that problem is thru the vesting periods - if they were universally agreed by Boards to be 4 or 5 years, maybe even putting it in the corporate bylaws (only if everyone does it), none of this nonesense would have happened during the boom because: People don't walk away from handcuffs, they walk away when the vesting period of another company is only 6 months. Never ever give anyone vested stock up front - that would create a casino-like environment and is the economic force in startup land that forced the hand of the big companies to spiral the amount of options up. Cut the vesting period, and those option amounts shoot up. Increase the vesting period, and people will think real long and hard before they quit a company - because success isn't around the corner but a vesting period of 4 years away. That's the key driving economic force on option amounts: the length of the vesting period. If there's one policy decision that would help all investors in the world, that's a 4 or 5 year vesting period. (Provided China doesn't screw things up for the world, as well as for themselves as it nips you back, by making theirs shorter.) If there's an international body that can force a 4 year vesting period for every corporation, that would be the thing to do. Regards, Amy J