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

To: GST who wrote (145378)	8/13/2002 3:24:04 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The weighted-average estimated fair values of employee stock options granted during fiscal 2001, 2000, and 1999 were $13.31, $19.44, and $8.40 per share, respectively. gst, value of the options appears to be about 18 times MORE than company earnings...

To: GST who wrote (145378)	8/13/2002 3:52:44 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Geez, you read it and post it and post it again, but you still don't have a clue what it means. Did you really read it? This is getting downright silly. Allow me to illuminate. The weighted-average estimated fair values of employee stock options granted during fiscal 2001, 2000, and 1999 were $13.31, $19.44, and $8.40 per share, respectively. All they are saying is that the average Black-Scholes value of options granted to employees (i.e. the average value of each individual option, at the time of grant) in each year was as shown. So, if employee X got options on 1000 shares in 2001, the Black-Scholes value of his grant would have been $13.31 times 1000 shares or $13,310. Nowhere does this say that the cost of option grants to the company was $13.31 per outstanding share (the $95 billion number is your "$13 loss per share" times approx 7.3 billion shares outstanding, in case you were wondering). Now, if you really want to know what the net income and EPS impact would have been had they actually adopted FAS 123 and expensed the options as compensation in accordance with that FAS, go back and read the footnote I pasted from the 10-k. It spells it out for you in plain English. You do understand plain English, don't you? Well, maybe you don't. BTW, though a few might be using other valuation methods besides Black-Scholes, the companies you keep naming who are announcing their intention to expense options are, I'm sure, simply adopting FAS 123 (until a better set of rules comes along). After all, it's their only other option <g> if they don't want to go to jail for signing off on non-GAAP financials. They will NOT be expensing the entire value of the option at grant. Did you know that?