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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jmootx who wrote (64828)	12/20/2000 9:01:46 PM
From: Wayners	Respond to of 99985

We are at 60% now Not quite. We're at -53.2% on the Naz. In 1974 the Naz was off 59% at the bottom. Also have to make adjustments for purchasing power of money. The 1973-1974 bear was by far the next worst bear to 1929.

To: jmootx who wrote (64828)	12/20/2000 9:16:46 PM
From: Casaubon	Respond to of 99985

since they did not cost him/her next to nothing that is a fallacy. They are essentially compensation with the expectation of higher income at a foward dated time for superior productivity. The options will always be worthless unless value is provided to the expense bearer (investors). I consider my options grants as pay in lieu of ordinary income. In fact, I could go to some stodgy old company and get a higher salary with no options compensation but opt not to do so. I have held worthless options for many years! The fact is, options are taxed as ordinary income. All income is a shared expense of the shareholders. I do agree, though, that options grants should be expensed somehow, by the companies granting them. Like any option, there is time value associated with the option grant. So, selling at any price by option holders is effectively a vote of no confidence in the future of the company.