Whort, "I think your claim is nonsense. Elmer has made a valid point. The shares bought back this year are not the same shares that are sold this year. Your idea falls apart. Too bad. Now go find another way to do your bashing."
First, it is not my idea. It is the Forbes-1998 magazine
idea.
Second, Elmer's excuse is irrelevant. I could not care
less which shares they were. What is important is
money, how much it cost to maintain the pool of shares.
Have you heard about quarterly balance? You sell something,
you bought something, you end up with the difference.
In our case, Intel sells stock at exercise price,
$3-$6/share, those shares go to market, and Intel
buys the _same_ (effectively) stock back at $30/share.
What is the end result?
Too bad you cannot understand
simple things like that. To calm yourself down you
can invent any excuses, but they do not change the
fact of negative net result of stock buy-backs on
the company pockets. This is simply ridiculous to
dispute. The actual question is whether these
undisputed expenses are part of operating expenses or not.
Some people agree that stock options are just a
supplimentary form of labor compensation, and therefore
it must be considered as operating expense, and
properly reported to investing public. You and
your buddies disagree, for obvious deceptive reasons.
- Ali |
