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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lee who wrote (98595)	8/27/2002 7:49:00 PM
From: Timothy Liu	Respond to of 99280

> The value of the options is not the question. The cost to the company is the question. This is exactly my point. Nobody is denying option has value. Its value helps to keep employee with the company. The question is the cost to the company. Cost of employment does not necessarily falls entirely on the company. All parties that have vested interest to see the company grow may bear part of the cost. In a hypothetical scenario a state government can offer to pay 5% of employee salary if the company select the state as the site for expansion. That state is bearing some of the employment cost in the hope of getting it back through tax revenues. In the option scenario the shareholder is bearing the cost in the hope of getting it back through higher returns. > the true costs of running the business In my opinion it is 'the true cost of owning the company' which is not well understood by investors. Just my 0.02$. Tim