SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (97238)1/24/2000 2:54:00 AM
From: Michael Bakunin  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
See my reply to PB, #reply-12655833. In Buffet's letter last year, he makes the following intuitive argument:

"[options'] accounting treatment is outrageous. Think for a moment of that $190 million we are going to spend for advertising at GEICO this year. Suppose that instead of paying cash for our ads, we paid the media in ten-year, at-the-market Berkshire options. Would anyone then care to argue that Berkshire had not borne a cost for advertising, or should not be charged this cost on its books?"

Click on the link to the '98 letter for more.

-mb



To: Elmer who wrote (97238)1/24/2000 7:23:00 AM
From: nihil  Respond to of 186894
 
I don't think Intel has to have 100% margin for its naked puts. Its just imaginary money backing them so there are not funds there to loose the use of. Microsoft (and probably Intel too) write into their non-exchange traded puts an option (for the company) to pay off the proferred stock on exercise of the puts with another load of stock (at the strike price). Wish I could do that. Its good to be a gorilla.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News