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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (179945)	7/15/2002 2:33:13 PM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Looks like all we need is a few more GWB pep talks and we'll have a bottom, a few thou below .......

To: LLCF who wrote (179945)	7/15/2002 2:36:51 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

DAK, 1.) There are all sorts of examples in accounting where treatment depends on 'size' of capital change... takeovers vs investments etc. 2.) My point is, it doesn't HAVE to be a 'cash expense'... there are lots of non-cash expenses. 3.) Of course they can still cross entered in the capital account. The rules of arithmetic apply equally well to one penny as to $1B. Double counting is double counting. Cash salaries flow out from the company. Stock grants attach new owners to the company. Any effect on a per share calculation can only be used in the numerator OR the denominator. Although it seems silly, it would do less violence to logic to adjust the numerator for a grant expense, but it is completely off the wall to then adjust the share count denominator as well. Regards, Don