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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (14778)	7/15/2001 1:51:11 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 42834

kirk, i KNOW how options work and i KNOW how companies manipulate them to create an accounting BONANZA (pete's word). i posed a simple question to you. IF two companies have EQUAL operating results, should they REPORT drastically different results due to the method of employee compensation ALONE (ie, $5 bill, $100 bill, cash, check, rent subsidy, options, etc.). this is the CRUX. even though you didn't address it, clearly, you believe the answer is yes. i, on the other hand, believe financial statements are intended to tell shareholders how BUSINESS OPERATIONS are performing. we disagree. it is ok. you don't have to resort to personal ad hominem to make yourself feel better and then justify it as though i did the same thing (i didn't). you FAILED to answer the question and attacked me PERSONALLY. pete FAILED to answer this question. his answer is "yes," though, b/c he sees the BONANZA (something for NOTHING at the end of the rainbow!). not an operations bonanza. not a better way to do business. rather, an accounting BONANZA. >>I give up as you really don't want to understand and then you accuse me of attacking which is EXACTLY how you started the whole discussion.<< i didn't attack you PERSONALLY for DISAGREEING with me. apples are apples and oranges are oranges. apples don't turn to oranges to suit your purpose. btw, i understand completely. buffett understands completely. technically, options accounting has a point. however, this technical point puts at risk the very foundation of what financial statements are intended to do - REFLECT THE RESULT OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS. the small picture (coupled with a self interest in a BONANZA) says ok, but the BIG picture, the intent and purpose of financial statements in the first place, is put at risk so a few folks can make a few extra bucks. i think this is bad. you think this is fine. i don't need to say you don't know what you are talking about to make myself feel better. i KNOW exactly where you are coming and i know the arguments. my belief is that current options accounting puts the cart before the horse - however valid the reasons are. we disagree. what you miss, AND FAILED TO ADDRESS WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED (and jumped immediately into ad hominem) is the BIG picture - should financial statements be concerned with METHOD of payment be allowed to mask TRUE OPERATING results. this is really not a complex question. i say no, you say no problem. apparently, this pot is made a bit differently than the ad hominem kettle - it is no stick ;-) you know my view (or should) and i know your view. we'll agree to disagree.