Originally Posted by Helpher811

Perhaps I am not understanding the discussion, however I fail to see the bad behavior of Steve Jobs, or the exact types of behavior that seems to hurt the company.
If I could bring it my simple level of comprehension, Executives that sell off their stock at the earliest opportunity are not acting in the best interests of their fellow stock holders, institutional and otherwise?
If that is the argument, should these Executives be compensated purely on salary and other "perks", and the stock be kept away from them ( do textbooks refer to this as the Agency problem?? ) Wouldn't that make the position less attractive compared to other opportunities? Should executives be working for a company based mostly on their belief and the chance for a nice bonus in (taxable income) cash from the Board?

I wonder in this case about Vonage, where the stock is not doing fantastic, as I have heard at the water cooler, and the executives and other shareholders are not particularly pleased. Isn't the stock incentive to the management tactic doing what it should, communicating their lack of effectiveness? Or is the article in the WSJ accurate about short-selling mayhem unfairly hurting the stock (which I thought was a buying opportunity for investors because it is severly undervalued. So someone holds, because the company can do much better).

And as for the taxes, while there many be some loopholes or details I'm not aware of ( being at median income limits my experience ), are there not significant efforts both, on the regulators and corporate managers that make tax-paying a running lobbying/lawyering game? nothing new there...
It seems that if taxes are considered for financing or operating a company, the true profits/revenues of a company should be reflected in the stock price ( which I think it is ). Therefore, ... therefore something. Perhaps your patience has been exceeded on the tax argument, I'll drop that....

And maybe it's the Jim Cramer luster of life I see in your posts, but pan6467, if Apple does end up doing well, either by another series of innovations or good management of iPod and Intel, or whatever, and their stock price continues on their climb, does the present CEO Steve Jobs deserve any of that additional recognition and therefore money, or has the Board gone nutso and should break whatever contract there is with him, fire Jobs and get someone cheaper?

On the other side, if the stock does go down, is Mr. Job's sell off completely to blame? While I accept the idea that he has siginificant weight over there, I also do believe the "investors" in Apple are a strange bunch. The company has had a roller-coaster life, and very few people in the past have been able to make it consistently a winner in anyone's book.

Unfortunately, I think personality plays a huge part in the management of that company, and probably others like it, and even if the cost for keeping him are outrageous, no one can easily predict if the company would even exist or profit without him. The winds appear to be in his favor now, and Mr. Jobs is taking the cash, which I find hard to view as pure greed.
Or should Jobs only sell a small amount at a time to lessen the impact onto the stock price (spread out over a few years, let's say)? Which, I think, doesn't really mean anything about the strength of the company or his greed, but keeps it under the radar so people don't jump on news.... or posts in a forum....

But then, I could be all wrong.....