InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

postyle

05/20/03 10:47 PM

#27156 RE: postyle #27151

Correction to my post:

ISOs don't trigger tax at exercise, non-qualifieds do. However the argument is still the same.

With the ISOs, the insiders can still be subject to AMT and again the old "buy and hold a year rule" is now looked upon by advisors much differently then in the past.

icon url

Corp_Buyer

05/20/03 10:56 PM

#27159 RE: postyle #27151

What? "You can't .. argue .. insiders are overpaid .. and then .. chastise them for not .. buy[ing] more shares". Of course we can. Is it too much to expect the most SENIOR management to exercise and HOLD at least SOME shares ESPECIALLY IF they believe the stock price will be higher in 12 months!?

The only reason insiders at IDCC are selling immediately, regardless of the tax consequences, is because they are already AWASH in stock options, not to mention another 5M more ISO share windfall potentially just around the corner at the June ASM.

Furthermore, the difference in tax rates between long and short term capital gains rates is very SIGNIFICANT (and even more so under AMT). Many, many managers at other companies exercise and HOLD their shares to reduce the tax bite. Then, after a year they sell some shares at long term capital gains rates to fund exercise of latter options, and so forth.

That is how I expect our SENIOR management to behave WHEN they BELIEVE the share price will go up in 12 months and they cherish their stock options. Clearly, at our company, we have ISO excesses and insiders that are simply awash in stock options, so they choose to exercise and sell, regardless of the tax bite. Why should they care about the tax bite, since shareholders will just give them more options.

If you want management to value their stock options much more than they do now and to drive the price per share rather than the number of ISO shares they can grant themselves, then ....


.... [you know what's coming] .....


.....


Vote "NO" on proxy measure #2.

Corp_Buyer


icon url

JimLur

05/21/03 12:22 AM

#27188 RE: postyle #27151

Paul you said “I don't believe for a second IDCC's value is going to plummet. And I doubt Colson does either. But that doesn't mean he should not be prudent with his holdings.”

Why couldn’t he hold on for a little longer? He’s a board member and should believe in the comments about the watershed effect and momentum that was afforded to us?

IDCC versus the charts is doing great but the insiders are sending a sell signal by selling.

JMO