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 : Employee Stock Options - NQSOs & ISOs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (71)	6/17/2002 11:14:57 AM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 786

I am in agreement with your analysis JS. In so much as I think the important thing is to reign in the massive, ever increasing transfer of wealth from outside shareholders to inside employees, I don't care whether companies in the future use the Black Scholes PV estimates to determine the value of stock option compensation, or use the "actual value" as measured by the difference between market and strike price at time of exercise, if and when companies report a stock option compensation expense on the books provided to shareholders. Practically any method of assigning value to stock option compensation would be an improvement over the farce we have going now---where companies are able to hide this massive transfer of wealth by reporting a zero dollar value for stock option compensation to shareholders. Best, Huey

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (71)	6/17/2002 12:14:27 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 786

>>"A promise. A piece of paper called an "Instrument of Grant" which details how a future transaction involving transfer of capital might take place. The real value follows later. Is it the conditional promise itself that has value? Or the value that follows later that has value?"<< Both. >>"So you see that it is fair to claim that there is not any actual economic value transferred on grant. HOWEVER, this doesn't stop us from declaring the option to "have value" and to assign a fair price!!!"<< I don't see that at all. Even an option that expired worthless had an actual non-zero value on grant. >>"So where you claim that there are two values, indeed there is but one value!!! Measured as it is from two different perspectives, one of which is perfectly accurate but retrospective, and one of which is prospective but prone to error."<< John, you've made that presentation many times .. and, as best I can recall, always without any proof .. or even a shred of corroborating opinion. Why do you think such a presentation should be convincing to anyone? How about a chapter, paragraph, or even a sentence from FASB SFAS 123? Ron P.S. I just received a copy of SFAS 123. Looks like good material to cure insomnia.