Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Forbes.com compensation
Michael Eisener, Disney Corporation
Tom Freston, MTV Networks (now head of Viacom)
Bill Gates, Microsoft
Frederick W Smith, FedEx
Sumner Redstone, Viacom
those companies are doing quite well and have had phenomenonal growth this past decade. The Forbes list has more obscure names and companies that aren't so "branded" but still these CEOs have some good compensation packages.
|
You're sure Disney is doing ok? That's why they threw Eisener out right... they were doing great? Since losing Eisener, the stock has been able to move upward, they brought in Steve Jobs, were able to get Pixar distribution back and have released some better films.
Viacom is doing so well they have to sell properties off like their amusement parks division, and why their stock has been dropping like a rock.
Plus, Sumner has bought far more than he has sold. Tells me has has more faith in Viacom than Jobs has in Apple.
Yet Viacom also shows a 9% loss over last year and last year also included a net loss of 12 million in discontinued operations. Which without that they have a 12% decline in earnings over last year.
Entertainment is hard, it is an animal all to itself. It's based on what movies, television shows and the advertising dollar. It is it's own beast. Viacom/Paramount, Disney(whatever studio), NBC/Universal, AOL/Time etc can all make huge profit on a couple good low budget movies or lose their asses on a couple bad big budget films.
(Just OT for a second:There are stockbrokers, who deal solely in entertainment stocks that can tell you more about movies, television and the ad revenue than they can the stock.... and yet if you find one of these utilize him to the best of your ability because they will make you money in the market on these stocks......) That actually felt good just giving good advice although I am sure someone will have to argue about that.....
Gates is Gates.....
Frederick Smith...... has acquired (bought not just threw options) far more than he has sold....
The point is, if you want to give your CEO thousands or millions of shares of stock that's one thing..... it can be very good incentive to keep pushing the company to advance.
But this is not the case we are discussing here. What we are discussing is the sell-off of the stocks AND THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE COMPANY.
Not one of those you mentioned (except for Eisener who was bought out) has truly sold their options, thus not damaging their company nor the value of the stock.
Unlike what Jobs has done.
But I am willing to see you give me someone who has sold all their optioons and their company and stock kept growing..... if you can find one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
Of course when an insider sells 10,000,000 shares there's going to be a downturn in the stock. If it was going up he'd keep it.
hmm. let me see.... oh there it is...
Ok, let me get this straight. Steve jobs has $600,000,000+ in stock. he wants to cash out. Apple withholds 4.57 million shares, or nearly $296 million to pay income taxes related to the vested shares and you claim Steve Jobs is skimping on taxes 
The net income was $1.68 billion over the three years - the cost of goods sold over the same time period was just under $20 billion. Steve Jobs made $600 million.
obviously. 
Then why does the long run picture of the stock market look like this:
My educated opinion shows an upward trend and wealth building. I wonder when the stock market will realize its doing it all wrong? |
I refuse to argue with you. This isn't about the stock market as a whole..... this is about certain companies.
Your personal attacks and the condescending way you choose to discuss and debate with me are getting old..... if you choose to change your tone I'll be glad to continue discussing MY OPINION and the facts against you opinion and facts.
I doubt either of us will change our opinion but we may enlighten the other or at least open the other's mind to a differing view.