Them Apples and Liking Them

[Jeff Bone]

ThosStew@aol.com wrote:

> Mr. Bone,
>
> before you fly off half cocked, know at whom you are flying. I don't like to
> blow my horn here, but I'm one of the four or five journalists who knows the
> most about stock options and corporate governance, have written about the
> subject for years, am widely recognized for expertise in the subject, and my
> politics,

Well kudos to you, Mr. ThosStew.  All that experience and you still seem unclear
on how executive compensation *happens* mechanically.  Makes me wonder.  I'm not
attempting to dispute your self-proclaimed experience and recognition, but IMO
your understanding of what's involved (or at least your positioning or purpose)
is suspect.

> about which you are self-evidently 100% ignorant

Quite probably.

> and which are far
> far away from screw the rich white guys, have nothing whatsoever to do with
> Michael Dell's inappropriately

*Inappropriate.*  Hmph.  Value judgement much?  I rest my case.  Oh, wait, not
just yet.

> asking ordinary shareholders (most of whome
> are rich white guys) to pay for something he shuld buy himself.

"Shuld." (sic)  Again, value judgement.  And I'll again point out that this is
between him and his shareholders via his board, and that they've come to an
agreement on his value to the company in question.  Given that Dell was one of
the top 5 performing stocks of the 90s, I don't hear the shareholders as a whole
expressing much complaint.

Bottom line, "take what you can get."  Dell asks, they give.  It's the way
markets work.  Charge what the market will bear;  the market sets the price.  The
shareholders are in the business of buying the services of one Michael Dell.
External parties grousing about this is really unproductive, and yes --- I do
question both your understanding of the process and your own motivations in
criticizing what appears to be a consensual matter between a corporate executive
and his shareholders.

Maybe you're a shareholder.  If so, more power to you.  Drum up enough support
among the rest of them and vote in a new board that will reign Michael in.  But
frankly, if you are a shareholder, criticizing Michael's compensation is even
more baffling;  I know he's been good for my own net worth.  (Indeed much more
than some other places I've parked value. ;-)  What's your problem?  I can only
conclude that it's political.

> Yes, if Michael Dell owned a sole proprietorship, he'd be entitled to all the
> profits, provided he obeyed the law (including tax laws). But he doesn't,
> that's an entirely irrelevznt straw man, and it has nothing to do with his
> option grant.

Its not at all intended as a straw man.  My point is this:  if Michael owns 14%
of the company, then clearly he is entitled to vote his shares to install a board
that will be favorable to whatever he perceives his own compensation needs to
be.  And 14% is a minority position overall, though IIRC he is the single largest
shareholder.  Even so, 14% doesn't trump the will of the 86%.  Those like
yourself who criticize Michael's compensation --- on what I can only assume are
ideological grounds, given your statements of "inappropriate," "shuld," and other
such value judgements --- blithely ignore the fact that his (and other executives
like him at Dell and other companies) compensation reflect an ongoing consensus
of the shareholders.

jb




>
>
> If and when you show yourself knowledgeable about the subject, I'd be happy
> to discuss it further.