They're related. You perceive they aren't, but I perceive they are. In fact, one of the reasons why options aren't expensed is because some political body (forgot which one, Congress?) originally wanted to see ownership grow to become a competitive advantage for the USA, over foreign companies in foreign countries, which is the case at the moment.
It was congress, although I don't know which house, that agreed with the tech industry last time around that options shouldn't be expensed for the reasons you cite.
I think it is interesting that today, the spin is that the tech industry strongarmed congress into "looking the other way" on the options issue as a sort of pork project. No way to know what the real thinking was but personally I doubt it was purely a lobbying issue.
I don't think it sits well in congress to have all these wealth generating companies turn from profits to losses. Congress doesn't want the US growth engine to shut down any more than your average unemployed worker. Hopefully this time, if the FASB gets derailed in some way wrt options, it won't be as easy to blame the big bad tech lobby. The tech lobby isn't as powerful anymore, so if options make it through without expensing, there will be other parties in favor of it. |
