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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkral who wrote (59746)	6/8/2002 10:08:32 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 77400

Folks, look for FAS 123, not SFAS 123. fasb.org

To: rkral who wrote (59746)	6/9/2002 11:20:23 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Then the (10K) info goes on to to give us an net income (loss) "as reported" of (1.014 billion), but a pro forma net income (loss) that takes into account SFAS rule 123 of (2.705 billion). Thus the option expense is $1.69 billion. You've probably seen the numbers of $2.6B and $2.8B (as I recall) in articles recently posted on this thread. I've no idea how the authors arrived at those. Actually, the numbers adjusted for stock option expense in the article that Mick Mormony provided are pretty darn close to mine. It doesn't suggest that the option expense is 2.8 billion, but rather suggests that the company net income (loss) is (2.8 billion) given the estimated expense of stock options. My number was (2.705 billion), but what is 100 million among friends? The biggest networking-equipment maker would have had a loss of $2.8 billion had it included the cost of stock options granted to employees, according to research by Lehman Brothers Inc. Best, Huey