SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GST who wrote (145349)8/13/2002 1:04:38 PM
From: Bill Harmond  Respond to of 164684
 
You are unbelievable.



To: GST who wrote (145349)8/13/2002 1:06:58 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Oh! Do you mean this black and white part?

The Company is required under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" ("SFAS 123") to disclose pro forma information regarding option grants made to its employees based on specified valuation techniques that produce estimated compensation charges. These amounts have not been reflected in the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations because no compensation charge arises when the price of the employees' stock options equals the market value of the underlying stock at the grant date, as in the case of options granted to the Company's employees. Pro forma information under SFAS 123 is as follows (in millions, except per-share amounts):

Years Ended July 28, 2001 July 29, 2000 July 31, 1999
Net income (loss)--as reported $(1,014) $2,668 $2,023
Net income (loss)--pro forma $(2,705) $1,549 $1,487
Basic net income (loss) per share--as reported $(0.14) $0.39 $0.30
Diluted net income (loss) per share--as reported $(0.14) $0.36 $0.29
Basic net income (loss) per share--pro forma $(0.38) $0.22 $0.22
Diluted net income (loss) per share--pro forma $(0.38) $0.21 $0.21


Help me out - I don't see anything about $95 billion dollars. Maybe you can find it - you're obviously better at reading financial statements.



To: GST who wrote (145349)8/13/2002 1:29:32 PM
From: Bill Harmond  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
It would help me if you demonstrated that you understand all sides of the issue. Then we could see the basis of your judgement.

So far the only motivation you cite for not expensing options seems to be criminal.