mepci, "you are so wrong my friend. The shareholders are liable through treasury stock to the employees on the option grants. It is as good as a wage promise. But all losses come straight out of SE.
Dell's derivative trading is a different matter from issuance of options.
By doing derivative trading Dell was able to hide the amount of money transferred from SE to management.
It is clearer now because, if we take the losses directly to the investment loss column, Dell actually lost money this year.
Please don't let your hero worship to Michael cloud your math skills"
You sir, are a genius. Maybe I should worship you instead...
Shareholders are only liable for options granted that are excercised or still "in the money". Those options granted that expire out of the money are worthless. If you call Dell and determine, over the last ten years, the (a) total options issued to employees/management, (b) amount excercised, (c) options still in the money that can be exercised, (d) options that expired worthless, (e) the total cost for all grants, and (f) total TS, you can figure that relative to gains and losses in derivative trading it was a net net. Proceeds gained through earlier derivative trading, thorugh TS, are used to offset more current paper losses. The net proceeds from both gains and losses on derivatives is minor. They do not, as you suggest, create a loss for Dell for the current fiscal year.
The latter supposition is a short's dream.
If the competition can't beat Dell through sales, they'll discourage Dell on the Street through inuendo and shadow boxing? Why don't you call Dell and discuss your suppositions with them? |
