Ask Michael Burke 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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Exacctnt who wrote (42626)	1/8/1999 2:55:00 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) of 132070

Robert == thanks >>The column also implied that Microsoft's financial condition and liquidity might be strained if the put warrants were exercised. This is equally mistaken. Our put warrants have a ''net share settle'' option that allows the company to settle any obligation by issuing new shares, rather than paying out cash. Microsoft uses equity put warrants to reduce the cost of our stock-option and share-repurchase program. We publicly provide complete information about all of these programs and have received kudos for our disclosure. In the four years that we have sold equity put warrants, we have generated $1.1 billion of after-tax proceeds and have never had a put exercised against us. We think the program has been an enormous success. Investors and the press, of course, can make their own judgment -- it's just better to do so with the facts. << I think in a way this is even more underhanded than goosing income. They simply intend to issue new shares if the market runs against them. The thinking must be they will not have any put warrants outstanding when there is a stumble, but what if they have a bunch outstanding when a real BK hits -- they issue a bunch of shares to covertheir warrants while the price is plummetting? OK, so it increases equity not income, so what? It is cash money, right? The CFO makes it sound like they are getting something for nothing, when in fact shareholders are being forced to participate in an options transaction that can result in a dilution of their equity at the worst possible time. I think it is a raw deal for shareholders. The whole thing is a larger part of legally lying (option grants being a larger part of the income for the troops) about the true costs of labor, IMO.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next