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 : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Night Trader who wrote (30681)	2/18/2002 3:22:42 AM
From: Umunhum	Respond to of 99280

<<Consider the case of two companies: company A pays its compensation in the usual way and has a loss while company B, identical in every other way, pays its staff’s compensation partly with options and so has a profit. Options have thus turned an undiluted loss into a diluted gain. Company B is thus awarded a higher valuation than A even though its operations are the same. So how can their effect already be accounted for?>> No money left company B for the options that were granted. Not only that but money actually came into company B when the options were exercised. So company B had less expense and now has more assets than company A. The effect is accounted for when earnings are released. Earnings are diluted because there are more shares outstanding.

To: Night Trader who wrote (30681)	2/18/2002 8:40:43 AM
From: Boca_PETE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

martin knight - Company B deserves a higher valuation because it was clever enough to get its shareholders to directly pay the stock option portion of its executive compensation. The different economics (ie. cash flows) of company A vs. company B deserve different accounting. - When company A pays conventional salary expense, Cash (assets) leaves the company and net assets (stockholders' equity) are reduced. - When company B gives employees stock options, no (assets) leave the company and net assets (stockholders' equity) remains the same. Only the outstanding shares are increased when figuring per share income on a diluted basis. The accounting proof is in the convoluted entries required by SFAS 123 when companies "elect" to book stock option expense for granted stock options. The entries are clearly forced by those determined to book an expense for stock options despite the real economics of the issue. In the end over time, you end up with a reclassification from one stockholder equity account to another because no assets left the company. In fact, assets came into the company in the amount of the option exercise price determined at date of option grant. Passions run strong on the stock option issue. You can see that from the responses to my initial post. Hopefully we can at least agree that many companies fought the proposal based on their feeling the proposed accounting was wrong and inconsistent with the real economics, not necessarily because of material impact on company net income. I have never seen anyone refute the above description of the economics of stock options because the economics (cash flows) are an undeniable fact. That's why it took an act of Congress to stop that train. P