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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (61165)	8/29/2002 5:39:50 PM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 77400

Lizzie, RE: Seems to me you have 2 options: 1) petition the FASB to force the options expensing issue into GAAP, or 2) don't buy stock in companies that don't expense options. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Ditto, way to post, etc.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (61165)	8/29/2002 6:02:31 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

OT ... Lizzie, re "... or 2) don't buy stock in companies that don't expense options. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me." Now there's a perfectly reasonable and practical solution. Especially when one considers that before June 2002, the only S&P 500 companies expensing options were Boeing and Winn-Dixie. That cut the investment universe down to 1 out of 250 stocks. Very good idea. And you don't have to worry about Huey IMHO. He knows how to read company financials and determine the impact of option expenses .. but there are many people who don't. Ron

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (61165)	8/29/2002 6:57:45 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

What's up Lizzie? 14 new posts on the cisco thread... Yeah, we are running neck and neck with the "New Economy Thread" today. Seems to me you have 2 options.... But it turns out that those options were worthless at date of grant. <ggg> The conversation started out with someone praising Chambers for taking a $1 salary in 2001 while the stock was declining. It turns out he was busy increasing the number of stock options he received by 50% over the previous year at that same time. this tired issue I don't think SI is a good barometer of the relevance or tiredness of this issue. The IASB will release their official recommendation to expense stock options on the income statements this fall. The FASB is working with the IASB towards common standards. TechNet, a California based trade association, whose 250 members include Cisco, Oracle, Intel and HP, are seriously considering various proposals which at a bare minimum, will require better disclosure than we are getting now. TechNet isn't doing this because the issue is old and tired, but rather because they are feeling under pressure to do something. A senior editor at the Motley Fool, Bill Mann, who has also testified before Congress, continues to fight this battle and is purging all AeA members, (American Electronics Association), from the popular Rule Maker portfolio at the Fool---including Cisco and Microsoft. In the last two months, 88 companies have stepped forward to expense stock options. You are welcome to characterize this as a nothing issue, but I just happen to disagree. Best, Huey

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (61165)	8/29/2002 10:40:23 PM
From: Tom D	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Its a tired old issue that could knock up to 40% off the value of the NASDAQ MSFT would have had profits of $950M instead of $1.6B in the last quarter if they had expensed their options. What would happen to the valuation of that company if their earnings suddenly declined 40%? What would happen to the overall NASDAQ composite if some of the largest capitalized companies expensed their options? Would we have two sets of expectations for PE ratios--one for companies who expense options and one for companies who don't? Probably not. Some companies would have major declines in valuations. As I recall, expensing options was only going to cause a 2% decline in KOs earnings. So they can afford to piously come out in support of doing what is right. IMHO, this is an issue that is rife with hypocrisy. Everybody really knows that options should be expensed, but so many influential people would be impacted in negative ways by another major decline in the stock market that they are all trying to rationalize an indefensible argument. Tom P.S. You may think that Huey is barking incessantly on a tired issue, but I think his arguments are cogent and well-documented. Maybe you should just skip his posts if you think you have heard them before. But let others read and enjoy, without disrespecting the ideas. It is rather apparent that other people on the thread appreciate his contribution and are engaging in a serious discussion.