[Fwd: Kudos and questions]

[Jeff Bone]

Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote:

> I believe Thos made this point, in the inverse.  It may be legal,
> but it's not ethical.

And so here for the Nth time is my point about this point:  making
value judgements about the "ethics" of any particular consensual
interaction which results in an acceptable outcome for the parties
involved is nothing but "busybodiness."  Tom to his credit has
admitted that he's in the busybody business, so that's just fine.  As
long as we recognize that Tom in this context is to the Dell comp
issue what Geraldo is to acromegalic transsexuals who love men who
love goats, then we're all good.  Geege, on the other hand, poor girl
--- she just thinks the little guys need a lot of help.

;-) :-)

Seriously, though:  here's a challenge to Tom / Geege / whoever.  If
we *unrealistically* assume that Dell had not received options as
compensation in the manner that happened, and all other factors being
the same as they actually were, what would the net effect on share
price be today?  If this is truly such a big deal, let's count it
up.  Should be easy.  Just figure out how many options were received
/ exercised / sold, total, subtract that from the number of
outstanding shares today, and divide today's closing market cap by
that number.  Tom, tell us just how badly Michael put the screws to
his shareholders.  What would the value of that anti-dilutive effect
have been on, say, a 1000-share stake today?

jb