Brushwud, No more so than your citation based on figures more than a year old, under different rules, to imply that AMD's options expense under the new rules would be astronomical.
a) AMD's profitability for 2005 isn't going to be that much more than in 2004.
b) The new rules will have the same method of expensing options, right?
c) I never claimed that AMD's option expense will be that much in 2006. More likely that AMD will just hand out fewer options, just like other tech companies including Intel.
d) The real hypocrisy, however, was the accusation that Intel really didn't make any money over the past 10 years or so because of all the options they handed out. That led to accusations that Intel cooks their books, yada yada. But lo and behold, AMD's own options turn out to be more "expensive" relative to their profits than Intel, and not a peep out of the formerly indignant 'Droids.
e) Personally, I still have a problem with this whole "expensing" nonsense, since to me, the real impact is when the options are exercised, not granted.
That'll come when Intel serves the anticipated subpoenas on 'em!
Who filed the lawsuit in the first place? AMD. Hence it's AMD who's forcing Intel to defend themselves, with subpoena'd information if necessary.
Tenchusatsu |
