I know how options work and according to the company's PR are suppose to be incentives for jobs well done.
As I stated in my last post the shareholder's shares had a decrease in value of $3.93 a share during the two year time frame you mentioned from 2001 to 2003.
What benefit did you provide the shareholders (owners) of the company for the years 2002 and 2003 that you or anyone should be getting options that were below the share price (option issue price) in 2001?
Does the qualification for the options you mention just mean you have to be on the job? All that the shareholders received during this time frame was a decreased value per share and then their reward is options issued at the new lower price that creates a dilution of their shares.
If my memory serves me correctly and I think it does you and your associates have been proven wrong time after time so I wouldn't be talking about inaccurate and misleading information if you expect anyone to believe your posts.
My question was and still is: "What did you do for the shareholders to deserve this windfall?"
jim your arguement is with corporate america. personally i think companies should give their employees incentive to do a good job. all the big companies do options. imagine if bbt didn't have options. talk about everyone leaving and the stock price tanking.