Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Bakunin who wrote (69759)	10/29/1999 2:00:00 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

mb - (..because secondaries benefit the company treasury, while options also benefit the company's employees...) I would need a lot of convincing that the preferences of the employees should affect the company accounting in the absence of real economic cost. If a company has its headquarters next door to a ski resort with free off-peak employee passes and is within a reasonable distance of an inexpensive condo/rental complex, the company will tend to attract employees who like to cross country ski to work and ski at lunch. These built in advantages will tend to reduce required wages, but certainly shouldn't cause an expense adjustment. If a company has options that have subjective value to potential employees, or if it is located in a low cost region, it shouldn't be required to record an extra phantom expense to equalize it with some other company. Maybe if Janet Reno adds the additional title of Handicapper-General. -g- I am not claiming that option grants cannot have negative effects, just that imputing some arbitrary phantom expense is not a sound way to do it. Regards, Don