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 (145726)	8/19/2002 2:12:28 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

That is the most likely direction of the new standard rather than the piece of crap you repeatedly cite. The number you quote is based on a methid that is almost certainly unrelated to future standards. LOL. You have no clue what you are talking about and have no basis, other than your own bizarre wishes, for this claim. The fact is that, right now, the FASB is only adding (or proposing to add) additional options for how companies transition to expensing options, IF they choose to do so. They have said they have no current intention of requiring that options be expensed and no one seems to be coming forward to lead the charge in forcing them to do so. Furthermore, though there is certainly debate among companies, accountants, analysts and rule makers over how to value the options, there has been no debate over the timing mechanisms of existing expensing rules. To be precise, NO ONE BUT YOU is arguing that companies should be required to expense options before they vest. This is a simple and basic principle, GST, not a "nit". But you are too busy ringing alarm bells to bother understanding basic principles. BTW, re your "six months to get to the standard, two years to implement it by law" comment, I hate to pick nits, but you do understand the difference between laws and regulations, don't you? Regulations are written to implement laws, not the other way around. Though the SEC may make new regulations that are not in response to new congressional actions (laws), it is doubtful that new laws would be passed in response to new regulations unless Congress wanted to block them or codify to prevent them from easily being changed again. But even then, the laws do not "implement" anything. Congress may act (I doubt they will), but if they do so, it will be sooner rather than later. FASB does not seem to be in a hurry, so I doubt they could "get to" a new standard within six months unless prompted to do so by Congress or the SEC. Sorry that the real world won't go along with your alarmist wishes, GST. "Points of substance"? I LOL again. You wouldn't know one if it...