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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkral who wrote (114676)	2/27/2002 7:26:23 PM
From: Peter J Hudson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Ron, The fact is that whether employee option compensation cost is determined using the "fair value method" or the "intrinsic value method" it is still determined at the date of grant. The big numbers JS has been using for cost to shareholders come from stock appreciation after the grant. Even using the fair value method amortized over the vesting period the actual compensation cost is quite low. Pete

To: rkral who wrote (114676)	2/27/2002 7:52:29 PM
From: David E. Taylor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Ron: You are correct. And the estimates of "fair value" of stock option grants I listed are those calculated by the company and reported in the 10K and proxy, along with the effects on net earnings and EPS if that "fair value" were to be recognized as an operating expense. And as I pointed out, they are only a fraction of the number JS has been floating. Plus, 72.623 million of the 101.288 million shares issued in FY2000 had zip to do with options exercise, but were issued as a result of the conversion of preferred convertible securities (sold in early 1977 to raise capital) into common stock. Yet JS used those to get to his $10 billion plus as well. David T.