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: Clarksterh who wrote (119103)	5/21/2002 11:58:36 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Clark: Chuckle. As someone who has what I prefer to call "an economic background" rather than "economist", I could not agree more. Those "economists" who are making the noise about stock options never met a payroll, don't have a clue about what really motivates people. It is all based on "models" and other "analysis" which make assumptions which bear little or no relation to real world conditions. If the assumption is that all corporate management, such as that of Qualcomm, is a bunch of thieves and crooks and therefore we the theorists know better, I suggest that the reverse is more prudent. Let's go with experienced managers vs those who teach/write/theorize. Anyone who actually thinks Qualcomm management is ripping off its stockholders ain't paying attention. The core strength of Qualcomm is the sucess of its R&D and its intellectual property. A major reason for that is the strong incentive provided by the opportunity to share in the company's growth financially through stock options. Let's be practical and keep that opportunity alive and well for Qualcomm employees - the people who are the engine of Qualcomm's growth. And if there is real doubt, the answer is simple, sell. Best. Chaz

To: Clarksterh who wrote (119103)	5/22/2002 12:27:18 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Oddly it impresses me very little that an economist, or a flock of economists, believe that this is a good thing Clark, what are you talking about? Buffett is not an economist. Remember the two Nobel Prize winning economists who actually believed they could run a zero risk hedge fund? Or the many Nobel Prize winning economists who believe in 'efficient markets'? the eggheads from LTCM were not part of the group advising Standard and Poors. you are simply setting up straw men instead of addressing the issue under discussion. which reminds me, you didn't address my earlier post to you in which i blew away all your arguments...:) #reply-17489375

To: Clarksterh who wrote (119103)	5/22/2002 2:32:42 AM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 152472

Oddly it impresses me very little that an economist, or a flock of economists, believe that this is a good thing. With all due respect to economists, fortunately, the majority of the people in the groups my post referenced....are not economists. Best, Huey

To: Clarksterh who wrote (119103)	5/22/2002 2:49:04 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Clark, When our companies fill out their tax returns for the IRS, many of them happily report stock option expense right up front using the Black Scholes model, subtracting stock options expense from taxable income on their 1120s. Why is that the IRS has not noticed that these companies are “double counting” stock option expenses? Generally the IRS looks rather unfavorably on such behavior (double counting expenses that is). Or to put the question another way: Why is that reporting stock options expenses to me is “double counting” stock options expense, but reporting stock options expense to the IRS is not “double counting” stock options expenses? (I believe the answer is that it is not "double counting" stock options expense in either case.) Best, Huey