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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (60736)	8/6/2002 9:32:56 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

I think that the reference to what is good for America is a blatant play on emotions. I don't believe in expensing options for a few reasons, but I still recognise an emotionally manipulative response. I posted my views on options expensing a couple of weeks ago Message 17787346

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (60736)	8/6/2002 10:12:54 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 77397

Hi Liz: You know very well that options are compensation -- to say other wise is pure BS -- the issue is how to account for them, and on that score there is room for debate. There is no consensus on the best method of valuation. But that is historically true of most things that are accounted for. It takes time for principles to be applied correctly and for standards to form. But people who flat-out argue against expensing options should be completely ignored as they have nothing to add to the debate. Options are compensation. Compensation is an expense. Expenses belong on the profit and loss statement. All the self-serving statements of all the tech CEOs in the world -- JC included -- are worthless if they are unable to honor these basic facts.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (60736)	8/6/2002 10:15:49 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

I actually agree with him. No surprise there. I expect your opinion is the predominate one in Silicon Valley. Cisco can't afford to come clean on stock option expensing and has to fight it with everything they got. Chambers couldn't possibly say anything other than what he did. I don't think the black sholes method of expensing options is accurate, it overstates, sometimes dramatically. Ok, let's phase in expensing for stock options by starting fresh with expensing stock options issued in 2002 and thereafter. Companies will have time to adjust their compensation programs to the new reporting requirements and they won't be forced to recognize all the underwater options granted during the bubble. Those options will continue to be amortized over the vesting periods in the 10Ks where no one notices them. Overestimating---even if it were the case that Black Scholes tends to overestimate stock options expense, the far greater sin is the known underestimation of stock options expense by massive proportions, as is currently the case by reporting the stock option compensation expense as zero. Everytime politicians get involved with equities they screw things up- just like in the mid 90s That's right.....When the FASB decided that stock options should be expensed on the income statements in 1994, Congress (at the paid requests from Silicon Valley executives) forced FASB to back off their recommendation, and thus stock options expense were relegated to the 10k footnotes where they remain today....where no one notices them. washingtonpost.com Best, Huey