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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (46731)	2/12/1999 10:18:00 PM
From: Richard Gibbons	Respond to of 132070

Yeah, I agree with most of your argument. (Though I'm not sure how the MSFT case will turn out. They're a monopoly; everyone knows it; everything I've read on the court case makes them look like one. However, I'm not convinced that the courts understand technology, so they might be befuddled despite what MSFT says.) I'm not so sure about the argument about the huge base value relative to the unvested options (diminishing returns). If someone's in this position, they've most likely got to the point where they are relatively wealthy, I'd say that financial compensation becomes a small component of their "reasons for working". So they might jump ship, but I don't think it would be for increased compensation; rather for things like a more fulfilling job or achieving dreams. As a result, I don't really see this as a major downside (except from the point of view that options allow enough wealth to let someone leave). I think you have the same problem any time your employees get wealthy.