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 (178113)	5/26/2004 8:40:09 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy, RE: But the $75 million dollars were not option gains, according to Mercury News. In fact, if these were options, he'd receive $0 dollars because there was no gain. He got paid $75M for having a pulse. Well then the Mercury News ought to check out their sources. Funny, because the source is pretty easy to check, Apple's proxy statement. The overwhelming majority of pay Jobs has received from Apple has been from options. All except for the $1 per year in salary he receives. Oh, I think they gave him a Gulfstream jet, too, one year. And his gains from options were a lot more than $75mm. It was $90mm in 2000 alone. $43mm in 2001. All options, again except for $1. Beleive it or not, Amy there are negatives to compensating employees primarily through options, too. There are plusses and minuses to all compensation schemes.

To: Amy J who wrote (178113)	5/26/2004 8:53:12 AM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 186894

Amy, would you like to review the option giveaways at Intel to the board over the last four years compared to Intel's stock price? I imagine it is uglier than Apple.

To: Amy J who wrote (178113)	5/26/2004 10:38:09 AM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 186894

re: Time for Congressional reform Do you really want a bunch of government legislators working as the compensation committees? Sounds like the equivalent of the old Russian Politburo to me. I think a better plan to accept the FASB recommendation to report stock option compensation on the income statements as an expense where they belong and let the chips fall where they may. I don't think modern day scam artists like Tom Siebel would have been taking home half a billion dollars in compensation over the years if investors realized his company had never even been profitable in its entire existence. On the other hand, as Rkal pointed out, other tech companies like Intel have generally been well run, profitable companies, which don't fare too badly even when they bring the hidden, stock option expense out of the closet and put in the light of day on the income statement. Let's get this information out in the open so when we are comparing company peformance and company income statements, some companies like Sebl aren't getting a monstrous, misleading benefit on their income statements by hiding stock option expense, while other better managed companies like Intel are only getting a marginal, misleading benefit by hiding stock option expense in the closet. JMO.