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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bafi403 who wrote (122073)	7/24/2002 11:08:02 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

that is actually a very good analogy. unfortunately, tech bubbleheads want free options and free expenses, in an effort to make their overpriced stocks seem less insanely overpriced. that, of course is the real reason for the debate--it has nothing to do with their intellectually untenable position.

To: bafi403 who wrote (122073)	7/24/2002 11:31:02 PM
From: Peter J Hudson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Bafi, <<Anything of value that is given away in a compensation package should be expensed at its market value at the time of issue.>> The problem with this logic is that an unexercised option (expired worthless) has no cost to the company. Expensing items with no associated cost to the company pisses off the tax man. The logical extension would be to tax the employee for options they don't get to exercise. Pete

To: bafi403 who wrote (122073)	7/25/2002 7:59:07 AM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Bafi, the only difference between the first version and the second version of your health insurance analogy to stock option grants is who is the payor for the health insurance; the company or the individual. However, the nature of the product i.e. health insurance coverage has not changed. It is still a consumable product, which has a cost/day. Whereas stock options don't work that way. That's my point. Health insurance premiums are the price of coverage (peace of mind from disastrous bills) for the period. Whether there are claims against the insurance policy is not relevant. I think that exercised stock options should be expensed, but not before they are exercised. At the time of exercise, the difference between the cost to the employee and market value of the grant should be treated as expense to the company. Further, to keep all of it simple and equitable, companies should be forced to obtain these shares in the open market only, or give them out from the stash in their possession. Issuing new shares thus diluting existing float should be disallowed IMO. The liability of the sum of all yet unexercised, but in the money (from the employee's perspective) option grants should be shown in the company's book as debt.