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: pater tenebrarum who wrote (82742)	8/8/2000 10:37:50 AM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Heinz, HO HO HO while the solutions to the esop issue may raise complex issues the ill effects are clear as you state. One of the worst aspects of the credit bubble is the uses of the easy credit - consumer consumption or as Clinton would say investing in pleasure and leveraging corporate balance sheets such excesses do not provide the means to repay the debt because it is not a productive use of credit such as an investment in equipment which increases productivity or an expansion of the industrial base. It is clear that we are headed for TL & EV . mike

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (82742)	8/8/2000 11:14:01 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

hb - I agree about the buybacks, and their connection to the option grants, somewhat tenuous though it is. [...the tax rebates have allowed various technology behemoths to report profits that would otherwise not exist....] I have reservations on this one, although I'm not sure exactly what your argument is. My understanding is that the tax deductions are limited to the balance sheet, and to not effect the income statement at all ( I'd like confirmation/non-confirmation of this, including if they affect the effective tax rate on the income statement). I suspect that you are saying that what I called the 'phantom bonus' is missing and that fact means that the company is underpaying for labor. My view is that anything that attracts and retains desired employees is fair game, to the extent that shareholders are not harmed. If a company is able to attract certain employees at low wage rates because they are located in a clean air, mountain, ski resort region, it is simply a natural advantage, not an item to add an expense line for. There is no question that the ability of a given company to in fact trade options for increased salaries, requires a company-specific advantage that the options are indeed considered desirable. Regards, Don