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: GVTucker who wrote (178117)	5/26/2004 5:16:55 PM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

GV, Before you dis Mercury News, you may want to take another look at the proxy statements. Steve Jobs exchanged his options for restricted stock. In fact, if the Board didn't exchange his options, he would have earned $0 dollars on the ones outlined. Instead, he earned $75M for driving the stock down in half. They gave him restricted stock simply for having a pulse. So how does restricted stock fix the compensation problem? (A few years ago, you had made a post advocating Intel use restricted stock instead of options.) I hope the example above shows the flaw in restricted stock. Regards, Amy J PS I have no issue with the gain Jobs earned in the 90s when he drove value up, and if anything he was underpaid for bringing Apple back to life in the 90s. But after that successful period in time, I have serious issue with a company giving him $75M for driving the stock in half, in addition to "alternative methods of compensation" such as the plane. It's an unfortunate taint on an otherwise outstanding CEO, and it also becomes a taint on the rest of the industry if people wrongly project his board's error into assuming the rest of the industry is corrupt.