To: Ted The Technician who wrote (141151 ) 3/31/2002 2:33:49 PM From: Ted The Technician Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684 >>if stock options get expensed, then we are in the 5th inning of the Nasdaq meltdown Amazon is not really cash flow positive! Found this in Amazon's recent 10k filing. Amazon would have lost another dollar per share if it included stock options as a cost of doing business. I don't understand why the SEC allows these costs to be hidden away in an SFAS disclosure rather than requiring that these costs be included within the income statement. Political constraints on the SEC are hurting investors in the long run. ---------- SFAS No. 123 Pro Forma Disclosure The Company uses the intrinsic value method in accounting for its stock options. If compensation cost had been recognized based on the fair value at the date of grant for options granted in 2001, 2000 and 1999, under SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” pro forma amounts of the Company’s net loss and net loss per share, which may not necessarily be indicative of effects on reported results for future years, for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 would have been as follows: For the Years Ended December 31, ............................................2001 ...... 2000 ...... 1999 (in thousands, except per share data) Net loss — as reported .......................................................$ (567,277 ) $ (1,411,273 ) $ (719,968 ) Net loss — SFAS No. 123 pro forma ...................................$ (963,085 ) $ (1,720,312 ) $ (1,031,925 ) Basic and diluted loss per share — as reported........................$ (1.56 ) $ (4.02 ) $ (2.20 ) Basic and diluted loss per share — SFAS No. 123 pro forma......$ (2.64 ) $ (4.90 ) $ (3.16 )