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: LTK007 who wrote (61910)	5/5/2002 3:48:01 PM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

<The companies have abused the options to such extremes they have asked for it.> How is stock options different from what the preferential tax treatment that the business owners get for starting a successful business? So workers should be discouraged from sharing in the wealth that they helped create? How is this equitable? What next? Should entrepreneurs also be discouraged from taking risks to start a business? Why should they get to enjoy wealth accumulation when their cousin the PhD in psychology struggles on mere subsistence? <Mythology that they deserve ungodly wealth> There is nothing ungodly in wealth creation. Americans created a system and Dream where ingenuity and hardwork CAN get rewarded. Even if things unfold as you wish, this is not more equitable or fair, only that those who did not get to share in the rewards earlier get to gloat about it over the ones who are trying to achieve the same success now, while (most of) those who already cashed out are too busy with their hobbies and wealth to even care what happens to the great unwashed. <tech whiz nephew who , though only in his 40s is a millionaire, and has jumped companies 4 times for a better offer.One of his brothers has a Phd in Psychology, and a mere fraction of money> When is it 'fair' to be a millionaire? What's wrong with someone in his forties being a millionaire? Anecdotes are nice, it is possible to pick on the individual cases and extrapolate to 'prove' anything. One can't really comment on salaries right? Salaries in the US are (generally-mostly) based on what the market will pay, and the market in the long run is always fair. How about this, if nine of his other brothers and cousins did the same and their companies went bust, I'd assume that all their hard work go 'unrewarded', would that be fair then? Besides, someone who chooses a well-defined career like PhD in psychology is clearly not taking risks with his future. Without risks, how can 'ungodly wealth' be rewarded? SbH

To: LTK007 who wrote (61910)	5/5/2002 4:36:27 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Respond to of 99280

The tech workforce culture "of i am available to the highest bidder" is part of what has been techs downfall I absolutely agree with that statement, in the long run it is not a good thing. But what can you do? When the biggest, most historically significant tech company in the history of our species is raiding employee pension funds to prop up it's PE, the only rational course of action for tech employees is to sell oneself to the highest bidder. Very very few companies show loyalty to the their employees. They should expect the same in return.

To: LTK007 who wrote (61910)	5/6/2002 7:22:07 AM
From: Boca_PETE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99280

itsallover: On STOCK OPTION PLANS, what is sorely needed is a revised Earnings Per Share and Stock Option Plan quarterly report disclosure that focuses the reader on past and potential dilution of earnings per share derived from exercised and exercisable stock options, NOT the booking of a theoretical stock option expense amount offset in capital surplus as recommended by the non-accountants, Greenspan and Buffet. Message 17074513 Here is how I see a revised stock option plan disclosure working: 1.) BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE (now required, using average outstanding shares [including shares issued from past exercises of stock options] divided into net income for the period). 2.) PRO FORMA BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE (using pro-forma average outstanding shares [excluding any shares issued to employees from past exercises of stock options] divided into net income for the period). 3.) EARNINGS PER SHARE DILUTION FROM STOCK OPTION PLANS (1 minus 2). -------------------- 4.) DILUTION FROM (In-the-money) POTIALLY EXERCISABLE STOCK OPTIONS (Figured without assumed buy-back of exercised options at the average price for the period as per the currently required "treasury stock method"). 5.) TOTAL PAST AND POTENTIAL DILATION FROM STOCK OPTION PLANS (3 plus 4). ----------------------- With the above proposal, I'm saying that neither the disclosures under the old rule (Accounting Principles Board Opinion 25) nor the pro-forma stock option expense disclosure under the new rule (FASB Standard Number 123) adequately reflect a real dilutive impact of stock option plans that corresponds to the real cash flows related to such option plans. FWIW, P