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 : Semi Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Berk who wrote (4151)	7/19/2002 9:30:48 AM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95420

I think that it makes some sense to have options reported and reevaluated each quarter. I've seen good points on both sides of the fence. Here's a link from TJ Rogers of Cypress Semi which weighs in on the side of pro-forma accounting and leaving the status quo alone. (NOTE: Usually TJ is pretty good at presenting information in a rational manner, whether or not you agree with him it's often worth reading anyway). I only started reading the first couple of pages before I got called away. I haven't been storing links on the issue but I'm sure we could drum up a ton from both side of the aisle on this one. I just logged into SI to check for messages, so I'll add my comments on this link later this weekend. cypress.com

To: Berk who wrote (4151)	7/19/2002 10:53:21 AM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95420

Here are some options related links from CFO.com (sorted by date) cfo.com:8008/query.html?col=cfo&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=&si=1&fs=&qt=Options&ex=&rq=0&oq=&qm=0&ql=&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=1

To: Berk who wrote (4151)	7/19/2002 2:52:10 PM
From: The Ox	Respond to of 95420

cfo.com Stock Options: Easy as SFAS No. 123 Movement toward performance based options will lead to adoption of SFAS No. 123. Robert Willens, Lehman Brothers, CFO.com May 29, 2002 The complaints registered about the way stock options are—or are not—accounted for seem to stem from the type of options being granted. That is, the majority of granted options are the non-variable variety. That means that both the number of shares and the purchase price are known at the grant date. Accordingly, the compensation expense of a non-variable option is measured at the grant date, and is equal to the "spread" (if any) between the then fair market value of the stock, and the exercise price of the option. Indeed, if, at the date of grant, the options has no intrinsic value, there is no compensation expense recorded. This is the accounting that was originally set forth in APB No. 25 and, at an issuer's election, continues unabated. However, a different—and infinitely more onerous—accounting treatment applies to options that are granted under variable plans. Why? To start, a prototypical variable option is one that is subject to "performance vesting." For example, the option will vest only if the corporation's net income, during some specified period, equals or exceeds certain predetermined and reasonably attainable levels. In such a case, the compensation expense is a function of the spread at the time of vesting. So, if the stock has appreciated during the period between the grant and vesting date, the charge can be considerable. What's more, in variable plans, the compensation expense attributable to the pre-grant spread is accrued over the vesting period; while the compensation expense caused by post-grant changes in the value of the underlying stock is accrued quarterly, as the underlying stock fluctuates in value. In each case, however, the amount of compensation expense is reduced by the expected tax saving created by the exercise of the option. (For tax purposes, the exercise date of an option is the date of reckoning, and the issuer—the "service recipient"—secures a tax deduction measured by the spread on the date of exercise.) On the theory that outside pressures will prompt many issuers to increase their use of performance based options, it seems likely that the issuers will also seriously consider adopting the provisions of SFAS No. 123 to minimize compensation charges. Apparently, only two S&P 500 companies—Boeing and Winn-Dixie—currently use the provisions to expense options. Under SFAS No. 123, the distinction between variable and non-variable plans is eliminated; the compensation expense is measured by the fair value of the option (itself) on the grant date; and the value is discerned using the Black-Scholes options pricing model. But corporate denizens should note that if SFAS No. 123 is adopted, it must be used in all of an issuer's stock-based compensation plans. When the option value is determined, the charge—which is based entirely on the number of options that actually vest—is then accrued over the vesting period. Lehman Brothers believes that most companies would make an estimate of this number at inception, and then, as the pattern of forfeitures becomes discernable, record credits or additional charges to reflect how the actual experience deviates from the estimate. Furthermore, under these rules, if an option that has already vested later expires (for example, if it was never "in the money") no downward adjustment is permissible with respect to previously recorded compensation expense. Thus, if the charge emanating from performance options under SFAS No. 123 is based on the value of the option at the date it is granted (a manageable number)—and the APB No. 25 charge is based essentially on the spread at the time of vesting (which might be quite substantial)—then any substantial movement toward the use of performance options should, as a consequence, cause companies to embrace the provisions of SFAS No. 123.