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: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (123138)	8/13/2002 1:50:18 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

then we can expect cash labor expenses to go up (and cash earnings to go down). Neither, though we may see a slight, probably insignificant, bump in cash compensation to make up for lost option "income". The kinds of munificent option programs that make a difference are generally available only to highly paid personnel. I don't think shareholders will stand for significant increases in cash compensation to executives which would make up the difference in their lost options. The climate is all wrong for robbing Peter to pay Paul. Lower-echelon personnel will receive fewer options, too, in my opinion. A thing that got out of control but will be corrected.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (123138)	8/13/2002 6:11:27 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 152472

OT...Mucho, well, options per se don't have an effect on cash flow as they are a noncash item ... Saying option grants "don't have an effect on cash flow" may be a correct conclusion .. but saying "they are a noncash item" is an incorrect premise, imho. To believe that the grant, the gift, or the transfer to an employee of a call option .. a call option which has a definable cash value .. is a "noncash item" .. is illogical, irrational, and even slightly insane. (That's a general comment, not directed at you personally.) Ron

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (123138)	8/13/2002 10:20:05 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

<...my personal feeling is that cos overpaid their employees with options. > Mucho, in hindsight, they were grossly overpaid in the most spectacular transfer of wealth from shareholders to employees. But, only for the lucky ones whose stock possession dates and sales saw them out during the good times. Some employees were sold out [to Ericsson for example]. Some people are looking at their more recently issued options and thinking that they will not retire on the profits. Stock options were part of the infectious greed, free money, roaring 90s. It's back to work. Stock options will be much more reasonably valued in future and employees will prefer to be paid in real money [since they individually have almost no control over the company's outcome]. With that real money, they can buy future contracts in the company if they choose to, on the open market, or buy stock. As a big deal, I'd say stock options are finished. They'll be put in the expenses column along with toilet paper, air travel and electricity and nobody will get excited about it; other than the excessive numbers that the CEOs still seem to think they are worth though CEO excesses will be wound down now that shareholder munificence will be an archeological wonder of the late 20th century - privation loves company. Mqurice