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 (89)	6/20/2002 1:09:18 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 786

Ron, without putting too fine a point on it ... LOL! The point is much too fine .. and you are the one "monkeying aroung with semantics". Not me. You proved OV = PV + EV. In somewhat the same way as I could prove X = Y + Z. That is both incorrect and an exaggeration. Using that equation, we both found values for PV = OV - EV to make our proofs. I did not change your definition of PV .. it is, by definition, the difference between OV and EV. I did not change your definition for OV. And I did not change your definition for EV, since I only removed the "discount to PV at grant" portion which became superfluous after introducing the time variable. (See further argument on this point below.) And you call that changing from OV = PV + EV to X = Y + Z? It's really changing from OV = PV + EV to OV(t) = PV(t) + OV(t), and you know it. On top of that, your "fair value" definition for OV is the same as your definition for EV. No wonder you end up with PV = 0. That's not a proof. That's a setup. So you haven't proven [what I suggested you couldn't prove] Ron. You merely use EV(subJS) = EV(subRon) + PV(subRon) I disagree, of course. I used PV(subAnybody) = OV(subJS) - EV(subRon) .. where the difference between EV(subJS) and EV(subRon) is inconsequential .. as I have pointed out TWICE .. by showing that OV(t) = IV(t) = P(t) - S at exercise. The discount to PV portion is irrelevant at exericise. The Black-Scholes model provides the discount at grant. But I repeat myself .. and I don't know of any alternate ways to debate the issue. So if I haven't convinced you of anything with this post, I just give up. I'm not learning anything anymore .. and I need to spend more time making some money. Ron