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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (166601)	5/18/2002 3:31:19 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 436258

Sounds like Luskin was able to tear himself away from the glue bong long enough to sober up and see the truth: So I've always been very suspicious about attempts to reform option accounting — if the wealth-creation machine ain't broke, let's not try to fix it. But as I've done more research in this area with Dr. Reuven Brenner — the McGill University business professor whose book, "The Force of Finance," I reviewed in this column several weeks ago — I've come to the conclusion that granting stock options is indeed an expense, an expense that should be included in companies' financial statements

To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (166601)	5/18/2002 3:48:28 PM
From: KeepItSimple	Respond to of 436258

The vast majority of tech stocks brought to market from 1996 to 2001 will show quite a bit more than 10%. In fact, most tech companies currently listed on the nasdaq have insiders selling shares worth multiple times the entire revenue (much less profit) of their company each year. Quick rule of thumb- if we're talking about a nasdaq stock the impact on earnings will be closer to 99.9999%. Tech companies will have to decide if they want to A) have 0 earnings forever or B) cut waaaaaay back on the executive printing presses. --------------- Additional expenses and the wealth-creation machine... ...the stock options impact will be far greater than the "up to 10%" that S&P has warned about.

To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (166601)	5/18/2002 8:34:11 PM
From: Earlie	Respond to of 436258

JJ: Good to see this issue finally becoming an emotional issue in the print media. I wrote about what a scam this whole game is (was) in many issues of "The Tech Review", but it was nothing other than spitting into the wind. Hickey, Tice, and Fleck have also railed about this practice for many moons but were ignored or ridiculed. Now that a large cross section of the investing public have been gored, it has become a big issue. The more things change,...... Best, Earlie