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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (165190)	5/16/2002 7:27:00 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 186894

Amy, re: His focus on penalizing innocent employees, rather than penalizing fraudulent behavior, is bizarre. I don't think his focus is on penalizing employees. He views stock options as an expense, the same as salary, and feels it should be reported as an expense. S&P seems to agree with him, they will report operating earning with options as an expense. This will hurt the reported earnings of many companies, both tech and non-tech. And that discourages the granting of stock options to employees. As a stockholder, I don't like that. But realistically, if options are an expense, shouldn't they be reported as an expense? John

To: Amy J who wrote (165190)	5/16/2002 8:08:43 AM
From: willcousa	Respond to of 186894

The VC's would have avoided a lot of the dot comms if they hadn't been sure they could get the wire houses to pump and dump the stocks on their customers, assuring nice up-front profits for all concerned - except the public investors, the employees and probably the employers.

To: Amy J who wrote (165190)	5/16/2002 9:12:06 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy: I am glad people are waking up to the fact that AG is an ass. JFD

To: Amy J who wrote (165190)	5/17/2002 2:17:10 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

OT, Amy J, RE: Hi GV, what does Enron's fraudulent behavior of hiding debt (that you listed in your post) have to do with employee stock options that Greenspan wants to attack? They have nothing to do with each other. Very simply so: If Greenspan negatively impacts stock options, he negatively impacts motivation. Stock options = motivation. Motivation is an intangible, something that's difficult for Economists to measure, so they dismiss it because they can't measure it. Never mind it's the most important ingredient for business success, innovation, and enhancing this country's GDP. Sorry, I don't buy that at all. A cash bonus create motivation, too, you know. Why do more firms use options than cash bonuses? Two reasons: first is that particularly for smaller firms, options do not involve cash, whereas cash bonuses do involve cash. Second, and more important reason: stock options create a tax break for corporations, whereas cash bonuses create a tax liability for corporations. There is really no logic why the second reason should exist. For smaller firms, the tax break doesn't matter. While they're growing, they don't pay any tax anyway. Thus,. preventing the stock option loophole doesn't affect the small startup at all. For a larger firm like Cisco or Intel, the motivation factor isn't too significant anyway. One employee doesn't make enough difference to impact the stock price. A cash bonus serves the motivation factor much better, in fact. It is easier to create a direct impact. The tax loophole is huge, though. There was no reason why Cisco should have paid no tax during the boom of a couple of years ago, but they did, mainly because of the tax loophole. Greenspan rightly wants to eliminate that advantage. It has absolutely nothing to do with economists not understanding motivation.