>Since he was granted 90,000 option in 2006 valued at $22,000 per the latest proxy, you want to ask him whether he would prefer to give up 45,000 options valued at $11,000 or $300,000 or so in cash compensation?<
What I'm saying is that it is all pie-in-the-sky insofar as option grants in these small companies.
Let's make the example more even: Over the lifetime of his employment, if Cox were annually offered the chance to receive options worth $325K in lieu of half his salary, he would decline it the vast majority of the time.
Cox makes a *substantial* salary, so any options on top of it are pure gravy. I disagree with those posters who think he necessarily feels a real pinch due to a downward estimate on the imputed value of his options. I would bet that any important financial decisions he is making for his family are based on his annual salary income and not some imputed value stemming from a ream of options. In turn, a "paper loss" on the value of those options is about as painful as the financial hit he takes from buying a cup of coffee.
To be clear: this is not a direct criticism of GTCB or its management (well... maybe). But this is generally the rule in biotechland: cash is king, options are pure gravy and don't provide any real incentive. Management teams ensure that their cash remuneration is rock solid and as independent as possible from company / stock performance. I'm not breaking any intellectual barriers here... just stating the obvious.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
