SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Ask Michael Burke

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Richard Nehrboss who wrote (67599)9/13/1999 12:34:00 PM
From: Michael Bakunin  Read Replies (1) of 132070
 
That's not how they calculate the pro-forma expense. If you check their so-entertaining 1998 10K, one method is: "Had the Company paid employees in cash the grant date Black-Scholes value of options vested in 1996, 1997, and 1998, the pretax expense would have been approximately $450 million, $620 million, and $850 million." sec.gov That number expenses only options that vest, and ignores all new, unvested grants. Then, when the options vest, it expenses the grant-date BS value, not the vastly higher vest-date value after appreciation of the underlying. You can back out the actual grant-date total by multiplying the weighted average option value ($23.62) by the number granted (69 million), which approximately doubles the '98 expense to $1.6 billion (and assumes all old grants were expensed in previous FYs). To inoculate in the market does cost you more (can you get MSFT LEAPs at a vol of 32%? I can't), but not 10x more. Haven't checked Parrish's version; what does he do? -mb
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext