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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (60556)	7/28/2002 3:00:22 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

OT ... However, you can't assume FY02 options costs were the same as FY01, because in FY02, most of the options are now worthless. So the costs are little to none. That's not true. Remember, we are talking about the cost due to option grants here. This FAS 123 cost (footnoted in most 10-Ks) exists even if the option is under-water. Additionally, the cost is amortized over the vesting period, either 4 or 5 years for CSCO. So .. FY02 will include the amortized cost of the latest year .. and, relative to FY01, drop the amortized cost of 5 or 6 years ago. Thus, the FAS 123 option cost for FY02 could very well be greater than for FY01. Ron P.S. Feel free to post to me at Subject 53027