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: Amy J who wrote (177309)	3/31/2004 12:19:50 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I don't think there is an issue really. I supported stock options for an expensive US based workforce. Offshoring mitigates the need. I'm unconcerned with executives because US executives are overpaid by a factor of 10 and in many cases executive pay has no bearing on performance. If China wants the CEO of ciena or sonus, go for it I say. The amazing thing about the tech lobby is that they managed to turn me, a fervent tech bull, off of their agenda. When I can't support them I doubt much of anyone does. Their agenda serves about 300 overpaid tech execs in the US, it seems to me and nobody else.

To: Amy J who wrote (177309)	3/31/2004 4:07:11 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Cash compensation is treated as an expense. Somehow that doesn't prevent companies from awarding cash compensation to their employees. Depreciation is treated as an expense. Somehow that doesn't prevent companies from investing in plant and equipment that generate depreciation. So why does it necessarily follow that treating stock options as an expense will not allow companies to award its employees stock options, particularly since the tax break awarded for stock options is still intact?