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: Bilow who wrote (83125)	8/19/2000 4:32:07 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Carl - [...The purpose of P&L statements is to estimate how well a company is returning profit to the shareholders, not to give an estimate of "the total company value."...] Unless you differentiate between 'P&L statements' and 'earnings reports', the shareholder dilution, which I have been claiming is the only appropriate place for the option effects to occur, DOES migrate into the P&L by reducing the diluted EPS. However, I expect that you would successfully argue that the result is only approximately correct if the actual earnings are large compared to an actual expense (if it exists) because the dilution can only make a percentage reduction in earnings, and cannot make a subtraction that turns gains into losses. It all seems to come back/down to the question as to 'what is a real expense?'. I think that you would agree that a company with a plant on the face of the moon need not include an expense for a lunar communications relay satellite just because it would need one if things were different, i.e. the plant were located on the far side of the moon, or the moon could lose its gravitational lock to the Earth. If the founder of a company owns the land the company sits on, and for his own reasons allows the company to remain rent-free, does the company still need to list a rent/lease expense? Regards, Don