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 : Semi Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Donald Wennerstrom who wrote (53464)	8/28/2011 2:18:22 AM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 95525

I think it is more an issue of "is there a better use of shareholder wealth than compensating the CEO $38M a year over 10 years with stock if the company goes nowhere?" That is, could they get him to work just as hard for say $10M? Even better, could they get twice the performance and even better return if they gave him 2M shares? How did they arrive at that number? Will he get zero salary like Jobs so his goal is to make those shares worth more when he can collect them in 10 years? Or will he be conservative to keep the stock FLAT so he gets paid in 10 years rather than crashing and burning like Lucent or Cisco or any other once hot tech stock that had someone come steal its thunder? It is a hard question and I'm sure what we follow for our companies here doesn't adequately cover it. But I've not figured out a way to capture it either other than I feel pretty good with Intel making what 26¢ of profit from every revenue dollar (give or take a few pennies) while paying a dividend over 4%.