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: H. Bradley Toland, Jr. who wrote (123202)	8/14/2002 7:25:03 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Said another way, if you're willing to come work for me for pictures of my face on a piece of paper, my company's stock, it is not a current expense to me. Stock options have a cash value that can be calculated on issuance. And what if the company takes the same shares that would be represented by stock options and sells the shares to the public for cash and then uses the cash to pay the employees cash salaries instead of giving them stock options? Clearly we have a cash expense here. But you are claiming if a company takes the same shares and runs them through the employee to the public and lets the employee sell the shares for cash instead of the company, that we have no expense and that the second company is magically much more profitable than the first company. No way. By the way, the dilution is the same for both companies in that example above, so you should be able to see that dilution alone does not take care of the missing expense. I have never seen a published treatise supporting your double counting contention, although I did hear that Andy Grove, a not so disinterested party, tried that argument last week.

To: H. Bradley Toland, Jr. who wrote (123202)	8/14/2002 10:00:55 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

OT...HBT, option compensation is not a substitute for cash compensation. ... If the employee chooses not to take cash in lieu of receiving stock, so be it. "in lieu" sure sounds like "substitute" to me. ... if you're willing to come work for me for pictures of my face on a piece of paper, my company's stock, it is not a current expense to me. That's not even a valid comparison. A picture with your face on it is worthless. A piece of paper that gives me the option to buy 1% of your company for a fixed price, anytime in the next 10 years, would not be worthless. Compensation does not have to be paid in cash. Employee life insurance provided by a company is a case in point. Employees pay taxes on imputed income above a certain base amount. Ron