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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ms.smartest.person who wrote (40924)	10/17/2000 1:04:36 AM
From: Ed Forrest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

I wonder if Bill Parish or anyone else for that matter,would pay federal income taxes if it was legal for them not to. Anyone hazard a guess as to the percentage who would? Food for thought.

To: ms.smartest.person who wrote (40924)	10/17/2000 4:38:08 PM
From: Adam Nash	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

What that article ignores is the fact that every single dollar that Cisco expenses here is accounted for as individual income for the employees exercising. Which means that the government is getting its tax on the entire amount. It's just not getting to tax it twice.

To: ms.smartest.person who wrote (40924)	10/17/2000 4:40:38 PM
From: Adam Nash	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Re: Options What that article ignores is the fact that every single dollar that Cisco expenses here is accounted for as individual income for the employees exercising. Which means that the government is getting its tax on the entire amount. It's just not getting to tax it twice. Re: Purchase vs. Pooling It is not clear at all that clouding the next twenty years of results with ammortized goodwill makes any sense. In the end, it doesn't matter due to the fact that any analyst worth his salt is doing free cash flow, and is thus ignoring it anyway. In the end, pooling makes it hard to properly calibrate historical models, which is why it'll go.

To: ms.smartest.person who wrote (40924)	10/17/2000 4:42:05 PM
From: Adam Nash	Respond to of 77400

Re: Options What that article ignores is the fact that every single dollar that Cisco expenses here is accounted for as individual income for the employees exercising. Which means that the government is getting its tax on the entire amount. It's just not getting to tax it twice. Now, it is true that this expense is not really a cash expense, but remember this is the same article that argues for purchase-based accounting for mergers, which would generate a huge non-cash ammortization expense every year. Can't have it both ways. Re: Purchase vs. Pooling It is not clear at all that clouding the next twenty years of results with ammortized goodwill makes any sense. In the end, it doesn't matter due to the fact that any analyst worth his salt is doing free cash flow, and is thus ignoring it anyway. In the end, pooling makes it hard to properly calibrate historical models, which is why it'll go.