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 : Long Term Investors' Outpost -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (410)	8/20/2002 4:21:24 PM
From: Jay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 562

pbs.org

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (410)	8/20/2002 4:34:55 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 562

<<option to buy one share of QCOM with a two day vesting period, and I further grant you the option at the below market price of zero dollars>> wouldn't that be a stock grant as opposed to a stock option? Yes. and when the employee excercises the grant, its treated as ordinary income for the employee. The employee either fronts up with cash for the tax, or adjusts the money received from the grants excercised to deduct tax at source. cheers, kumar@beenthere,donethat.pov

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (410)	8/20/2002 5:36:16 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 562

Huey, I don't even like Lieberman, but I'm ruffled by your allegation. Certainly this isn't a matter of public record, or Joe would be in the slammer by now. I am not alleging that Senator Lieberman did anything illegal, so I will change my statement to, that in my opinion, Senator Joe Lieberman was heavily influenced by lobbies. The concept behind stock options is that they are worthless at the time they are awarded, and only become valuable if the company does well. The concept that stock options are worthless when granted is absolutely absurd in my humble opinion. If stock options are worthless when granted, why did people accept them in lieu of cash for all kinds of services or products rendered during the bubble---painting houses, rent payments, for legal services, etcetera. Not only that, but according to Buffet, the day an employee receives an option, he can engage in various market maneuvers that will deliver him immediate cash, even if the market price of his company's stock is below the option's exercise price. Wouldn't that be a stock grant as opposed to a stock option? I don't know, but I doubt it is relevant. We can change the example to price the option at market price at date of grant and let the stock subsequently appreciate and go through the same exercise. I can make the same conceptual, economic equivalency argument at any price level you want, but I purposely made that simple argument to drive home the inconsistency in not recognizing an expense in the first instance and recognizing an expense in the other instance when all that is happened is that value from one share ends up going directly to an employee in the first case versus indirectly to an employee in the second instance. Did you read the article by Dr. Pacter? Which points did he make that you disagree with? Best, Huey