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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (5578)	7/25/2000 10:20:53 AM
From: AllansAlias	Respond to of 436258

Well, needless to say, I did not get long. She got ugly right quick. NDX-cash is sitting on what should be a very strong shelf, one built with many openings and closings around the 3765 level. I can not see this buckling easily, but then again, sometimes I think the market exists only to constantly surprise me/us. --Allan last print = 3762

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (5578)	7/25/2000 10:32:24 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<2. Except for ownership structure, the financial variables of the company are unchanged.> But often variables effect many areas of the accounting statements do they not?? So you can have expenses that are offset in capital accounts no? I can't imagine a case that is more straightforward than this one... these options are salary expenses... it's just a matter of when and how much to allocate them as such. These options are easy to value, and they have a clear opportunity cost... cash bonus.... which the company cannot currently afford. Example: You give a code jocky 100k options [options on 100k shares struck @ $100 per share... the stock is trading @ $50... they expire in 10 years] to join the firm. These options are easy to value, and they have a clear opportunity cost... cash bonus.... which the company cannot currently afford. As the stock rallies, the account can be adjusted... ie. the bonus INCREASED.... as the stock falls, the bonus decreased. <The option grants dilute the existing ownership, and that effect is entirely contained in the resulting increased share count, with no need to additionally adjust the actual revenue or earnings numbers for the company AS A WHOLE.> I suppose there is 'no need', but clearly this would be incorrect... since option grants are clearly part of the salary, right? How do you justify leaving them out of "salary expense"?? DAK