OT ... Lizzie, re "I do apologize for this problem that I have of tripping over multiple threads, in this case intel and cisco. Same people on both, similar discussions, and I get confused."
Similar discussions on multiple threads has *nothing* to do with your attributing words like "shame" and "abuse" re options to me. Ditto for your inferring my viewpoint about "outsourcing" when I've never made any statement about outsourcing.
re "Just go to a search the Cisco thread, type in the word "abuse" and you will discover multple posts where options were being discussed among 4 people- yourself, hueyone, John Shannon and mindmeld."
Whoa there! You're the one that ascribed the word "abuse" to me. You make the search. I already know what I did or didn't say.
re "But since you take issue with the term, I'm curious- is it your belief that options as they are currently utilized and documented are fair and equitable and key drivers of growth/innovation at companies like cisco, intel, msft then?"
I don't take issue with the term. I take issue with you ascribing use of the term to me.
Can options be effective drivers of growth and innovation? Sure. And I believe they've been effective at CSCO, INTC, and MSFT. But I also believe options should be expensed, and that expensing options won't have the dire consequences you've been predicting in your recent posts.
Is there abuse at some companies? Of course. The extremes are easily recognized, but I haven't yet decided where that gray fuzzy line is. If you have, where do you think it is?
The earnings numbers being bandied about right now, expensing versus not expensing, are not very useful IMHO. When earnings are depressed, the impact of options expensing appears worse than it is. Same thing for PE ratios. In the later case, people use PSRs for a sanity check. On the ESO thread, I suggested an OESR (options expense to sales ratio) as an options corollary to the PSR.
re "I don't believe some companies can succeed without the current options treatment"
IMHO, that's a scare tactic balloon being floated by the anti-option-expensing crowd. There has not been a credible, common sense, cause-and-effect argument to support that conclusion, AFAIK. Do you know of any?
re "if you and I are not far apart on this then why call me an irrational extremist"
But we *are* far apart on this. And I didn't say you *were* an irrational extremist, I said you were *becoming* one, .. because you are predicting such dire irrational consequences to expensing options.
re "I am merely echoing the pov of John Doerr and others"
Seriously, you should try to understand the opposite viewpoint. Then you might end up in the middle, instead on the John Doerr extreme. The middle is more comfortable, and closer to the truth, IMHO.
re "If you truly believe that I have mischaracterized you as someone who believes options are abused, then I certainly apologize, but right now I'm wondering what this is all about."
What it's all about? It's the characterization you just stated. I have no hidden motive.
Apology accepted.
Regards, Ron |
