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: rkral who wrote (62857)	2/4/2003 1:47:13 PM
From: Carol M. Morse	Respond to of 77400

Here's some information from technet.org regarding the tax code on expensing stock options: TechNet Opposes IASB Stock Options Proposal TechNet supports the existing financial accounting standard that requires footnote disclosure of the fair value of employee stock options. TechNet opposes the IASB proposal to require that employee stock options be recognized as an expense in income statements. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), a private sector accounting standard setting body whose mission is the convergence of international accounting standards, has proposed to adopt an international accounting standard that will require companies to recognize employee stock options as an expense in income statements. This standard is not currently used anywhere in the world. The IASB proposal ignores longstanding and accepted accounting rules for stock options. In 1993, the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposed an accounting standard that would require companies to treat stock options as an operating expense and incorporate them into their income statements. Businesses, employees, institutional investors and others vehemently opposed this proposed standard. After hearing from all parties, the FASB arrived at a standard (Statement 123) requiring footnote disclosure of the fair value of employee stock options. This standard ensures that investors receive key information while companies do not expense the options. This standard has been successfully utilized in the U.S. since 1995. The IASB has now decided to reopen this issue by proposing that companies be required to recognize stock options as an expense in their financial statements. The IASB should abandon its current position and instead advance global accounting standards by adopting the current U.S. model for treatment of stock options. Current FASB standard (Statement 123) has proven to be a workable and effective means of providing investors precise information about employee stock options while avoiding misleading expense charges in company income statements. If there is a need for an international standard on stock options, FASB’s Statement 123 is a proven and well-respected standard. The IASB should recognize it as such. IASB’s proposal will create a widespread burden on the business environment – financial statements would be misstated, stock prices would drop, stock option plans would be scaled back and venture capitalists would finance fewer companies. At a time when investors and the markets in general require consensus, convergence of accounting standards and greater certainty, the IASB proposal would do precisely the opposite, generating a contentious debate and upheaval in the markets. The proposal also would have considerable adverse impact on today’s work force. Middle management and rank-and-file workers participate in most of today’s stock option plans. Forcing a charge against earnings would diminish the use of stock options, negatively affecting the workforce at a time of rising unemployment and considerable layoffs, without providing valuable information to investors and others.

To: rkral who wrote (62857)	2/4/2003 1:50:10 PM
From: Carol M. Morse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

And this also: Stock Option Accounting TechNet opposes S.1940 (McCain/Levin) - legislation intended to reverse the current stock option accounting standards by limiting tax deductions from stock options to the amount a company includes as an expense on financial statements. Current accounting standards for stock options requires transparency and extensive disclosure of precise and objective information in financial reports. FAS 123, the current stock option rule, was hotly debated and fully vetted. The final result was a rule that permitted, but did not require, stock options to be expensed. If the non-expensing approach is selected, extensive disclosure relating to the options must be made in the footnotes to the financial statements. Building upon this disclosure approach, the SEC announced in December that additional disclosure to investors of stock options plans -- an initiative begun by former Chairman Arthur Levitt -- would now be required. This announcement was widely hailed by shareholder advocates and investor groups. This recent and significant development at the SEC enhances the transparency of the potential cost of stock options plans to shareholders. In contrast, stock option expensing - the goal of the McCain/Levin legislation - would skew financial statements by introducing a misleading and unreliable expense number into financial statements. An expense approach would be misleading to investors. Because options cannot be measured accurately, an expense will lead, by definition, to inaccurate financial statements. First, the “cost” of granting stock options is not an out-of-pocket cost. Instead, any “cost” is limited to the potential dilution that the existing shareholders would bear if and when the options were exercised. Second, existing option pricing models (such as Black-Scholes) simply are incapable of “valuing” employee stock options – these models were designed to value freely-tradable options. Employee stock options are not freely tradable and are generally not vested until years after they are granted. By limiting the tax deductions for stock options, the bill amounts to a corporate tax increase. A company's tax deduction would be limited to the amount of stock option expense reported on its financial statements. This would generally be less than the current tax deduction allowed under the Tax Code. A tax increase would hurt small, medium and large-sized businesses and could dampen job growth in an already difficult economic climate. The bill would also discourage R&D, because the R&D tax credit would be reduced for companies that do not expense stock options and complicated by the fact that companies would have to compute the amount of options included in the credit computation on an employee-by-employee, option-by-option basis. The stock option accounting standards are not at issue in the Enron fraud. There is no circumstance where employee stock options would require a reduction in a company’s assets, an increase in its debt or a decrease in shareholders’ equity. In addition, accounting for stock options is entirely irrelevant to the 401(k) plan matter that has arisen in the Enron environment. Corporate policies relating to how much company stock in which employees can invest in their 401(k) plan are unrelated to accounting for stock options. The two issues are totally separate -- and stock option plans are completely unrelated to 401(k) retirement plans. Stock options are currently broadly based, awarded to employees at all levels of companies across the American economy. Requiring options expensing will severely limit the ability of companies to recruit and retain talented employees at all levels, impacting innovation and growth in the American economy. TechNet urges Congress to oppose S.1940 - legislation that will do significant harm to the technology industries and investors, without addressing the real issues of the Enron collapse.