Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 165.05

-1.1%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: hueyone who wrote (119872)	6/4/2002 5:20:34 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (2) of 152472

Cancelled my conclusions re Levin/McCain S.1940 bill ... ... and plan to review conclusions re employee stock options. My confidence in my understanding of this option stuff is now shaken, since I ran across "Section-by-Section Analysis of S. 1940 Ending the Double Standard for Stock Options Act", on Senator Carl Levin's web site. levin.senate.gov The S.1940 Analysis does not use the word "grant", so I'm no longer sure S.1940 addresses the option grant expense, the 'SFAS 123 expense' .. but the Buffett article implies a Levin/McCain bill does address that issue. I trust what Mr. Buffett says, so I suspect the S.1940 Analysis could go a bit further than it does. I'll be drilling deeper until the understanding has returned. There wouldn't be more than one Levin/McCain bill re options, would there? <g> Ron

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next