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 (177543)	4/14/2004 7:28:33 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 186894

You're a contractor. Contractors don't get options. AmyJ, I would like to ask you to stop making assumptions, you have done that before and it is tiring to refute.

To: Amy J who wrote (177543)	4/14/2004 12:48:28 PM
From: Robert O	Respond to of 186894

<If you were on a board, with the complete ability to influence it, what would you do?> Fire your insufferable, interminable time wasting arse. Hey you asked! LOL RO Ps. for the knights-errants in the crowd, relax, she has me on ignore, no?

To: Amy J who wrote (177543)	4/14/2004 6:12:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

One thing I've always been meaning to ask you is: do you think there are other ways to control quantity of options? Is there a better solution? Rather than taking the first solution that drives up, what other procedures could be put in place to control quantity? One idea I had for our startup, was to put a junior employee on the comp committee. Do you think two tieredness can happen when all perspectives are at the same table, with equal wait? I don't think there is a quality problem with options except at the top. I supported the non expensing of options for all but the top 5 executives proposal that was floated a while back there, it probably won't pass, but that would have been ok by me. I think the only thing that can be done here to clean up this executive overcompensation at the top would be to require simple charts at the front of each earnings statement that broke options into groups: executive, middle management, all staff (or something like that) and then calculated the exact compensation amount as of the close of market at EOQ for each group and documented it. So in the case of Cisco you'd probably have a big "X" in the middle management and other staff, and then a smaller one for executives and it would be clear to the shareholder what the dollar amount of this options compensation was in total, as well as who it was going to in the company. Forget the grant dates for example, that is somewhat irrelevant and confusing. Just total amts. The companies like CA that overcompensated their execs vs. the staff could get a ding from Calpers or whoever. That is my only suggestion really. I posted on the real estate thread that I think we've got a problem with corp earnings anyway, they are depressed due to 70 years of politicking creating loopholes galore. Warren Buffett says corp taxes are reflecting less than 1/3 of the tax burden that they used to... imho this is as a result of these loopholes (since rates are still reasonable) and this options expensing situation is another case of a tax loophole that has the potential to artificially depress earnings. All the overvaluation arguments about sky high PEs need to take into account the fact that many companies are generating more than 2x the cash as earnings. The street is already wise to this and thats why I think options expensing won't hurt stocks. It will cause for fewer options to be granted in total but that is all.