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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: technologiste who wrote (50653)	7/24/2002 6:37:56 AM
From: QwikSand	Respond to of 64865

That Salon article is just a lot of transparent gibberish. It puts nothing "to rest" whatever. Who is this guy to "decode" what McNealy says and tell investors what they should read into his words? I take McNealy's words at face value. When a bubble pops, and the rocks are turned over and some crooks are found (a small percentage of the total business leaders in the country, but some of them running very big shops), the frantic public goes into "don't just stand there, do something" mode. And how are the politicians going to respond? Morph into honest men overnight and actually fix problems? Admit they had a hand in keeping the whole bubble alive in the first place? Do something to jeopardize their soft money? Of course not. They're going to grandstand and create heat without light. Hold some committee meetings, make some speeches, and tell everybody to go back and look at their books again to make absolutely, positively sure they weren't lying? Self parody. McNealy expressed reluctance, not to attest that his company's management is honest (which he has alredy done), but rather to waste time on meaningless government fetch-a-rock antics when he's got his hands full with a company in trouble in a shitty economy. It couldn't get any more obvious. And as far as the rest of his crap about hardware/software solutions not working and the CEO not knowing and not caring about it, that's such hoary BS it's not even worth a response. --QS

To: technologiste who wrote (50653)	7/24/2002 7:47:39 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 64865

Scott is wrong on this one. imo.... He should have confidence in his own auditing department and outside auditors to determine if the books are accurate.... There was an article yesterday about some ceo's requesting the sec if they could delay signing, others requesting to change the wording ,sec no changes, sign by Aug 14th..... Scott get with it!

To: technologiste who wrote (50653)	7/24/2002 8:00:20 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Respond to of 64865

I hope your irony was intentional. If a CEO does not understand his company's books, or does not understand his company's products, he should be fired for incompetence. For that matter, the quoted CEO job description describes perfectly Fran Tarkenton's tenure at Knowledgeware, a performance which served as an early model for much of what has happened in the last few years. The best quote from the Salon article came right after the part you quoted: McNealy's attitude is the culmination of the last decade's ascendant ethos for U.S. business: near worship and lavish compensation for people who "make things happen" coupled with near contempt and minimal rewards for people who "make things work"

To: technologiste who wrote (50653)	7/24/2002 12:01:41 PM
From: DiViT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Did you see this article at sun.com against counting stock options as an expense? sun.com Options Drive Economic Growth This article first appeared on Silicon Valley Business Ink Friday, May 24, 2002. By Crawford Beveridge I want to start with a simple statement that millions of people will agree with: Stock options are a good thing. Without them, we would have fewer new businesses, fewer jobs, and fewer employees whose interests are directly linked with the interests of other stockholders. As the chief human resources officer of a Fortune 500 company, I'm well acquainted with the value of this motivational tool--as are millions of rank-and-file workers all across the country. So why state the obvious? Because it's being obscured by the scandal surrounding the collapse of Enron, an event that had nothing to do with stock options. I don't wish to minimize the scandal--a catastrophic breach of public trust that involved improper accounting for special-purpose entities. But the response should help investors and workers, not hurt them. I fear the opposite may be happening. In the rush to prevent another Enron, Congress is now considering Senate Bill 1940, by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that would change the way companies account for stock options. The change is being proposed in the name of clear accounting, something we all strongly favor, but it would not add clarity and could very well destroy an effective incentive program. The bill requires companies that issue stock options to count them as a corporate expense if they also count them as tax deductions. It sounds simple, but the reality is far more complex. Since there's no way to predict the eventual value of stock options when they're issued, there's no way to state the expense accurately. And the use of option pricing models to estimate fair value produces arbitrary and potentially unsound results. The bottom line: Expensing stock options would make financial statements less, not more, reliable. Current accounting requirements present a clearer picture. The cost of options to other stockholders is reflected in diluted earnings per share. Financial analysts, stockholders and the public already have access to that information, thanks to disclosure requirements. In fact, all this was hashed out years ago. And the current system works--for companies, employees, and stockholders alike. No stock-option transaction--neither granting, vesting, nor exercising--requires the company to reduce its cash assets, so options have no impact on the company's operating cash. They do have a major impact in solidifying the partnership between management, employees and stockholders. Large businesses provide employee stock options and broad-based employee stock-purchase plans to help motivate their employees and improve productivity. Small, growth-oriented companies rely on stock options to attract, retain and motivate the entrepreneurial talent they need to succeed. One fact we must not lose sight of, especially now, is that employee stock options are directly linked to strong job growth. In fact, their use is pervasive among startups, which represent a key engine of growth for the U.S. economy. The legislation by Sen. Levin and McCain would limit the ability of companies to take deductions for stock-option exercises, effectively raising taxes on those companies and hampering their ability to create jobs. It would also affect earnings reports and force companies to reduce the number of options issued. As a result, the average worker would be denied the opportunity to benefit from stock options. That's not a good thing.