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: rkral who wrote (87)	6/20/2002 11:46:00 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

Ron, without putting too fine a point on it, you missed the point to the point of being silly. You proved OV = PV + EV. In somewhat the same way as I could prove X = Y + Z. Merely by choice of Y and Z. Rather than by proving what I meant OV to represent (you are clear on this) equaled the sum of what I meant PV to represent (you missed this) plus what I meant EV to represent (you missed this too). Just to be perfectly clear, I clearly explained the definition of EV that I was using: Let us define EV as the expected future value of an option on exercise. To be exact, this is the expected difference between strike price and market price, over some period of time in the future discounted back to present value. Which in case you haven't figured it out is what you would use Black-Scholes to calculate!!! [EDIT: WHICH PRETTY WELL BOXES US IN TO OV = EV + 0 !!! AND YOU WILL HAVE A HARD TIME DEMONSTRATING OTHERWISE, AS I SUGGESTED IN MY REQUEST FOR YOU TO PROVE OV = EV + PV... UNLESS YOU CHANGE DEFINITION OF EV... IN WHICH CASE YOU HAVE STILL NOT PROVED WHAT I ASKED... QED] So you haven't proven [what I suggested you couldn't prove] Ron. You merely use EV(subJS) = EV(subRon) + PV(subRon) But hardly advance the discussion in the slightest. We're not much further than here: Message 17612414 Which is why I pointed out that all you have been doing for the last few posts is monkeying around with semantics and wasting energy. John