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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (173001)	2/11/2003 10:59:55 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy, RE: I have a question: setting aside appearances, between the two (refresh vs reprice), isn't a reprice actually better for us investors than a refresh? (I'm asking.) A refresh takes away shares, while a reprice doesn't. Right? In theory, perhaps. In reality there is no difference. In a refresh, while it might "take away" shares, the old, unrepriced options aren't going to get exercised anyway, so they're irrelevant. What do privately held startups generally do? Reprices or refreshes? (and which one is more ethical for a private firm) For a privately held startup, valuation is a lot more uncertain. If for whatever reason a reprice/refresh is necessary, I'd just as soon reprice. It keeps things simpler, in my mind. It all depends on what's necessary to keep the workforce happy and stable. As far as ethics are concerned, as long as the junior employees get as good or better deal than the founders and senior employees, things are OK in my book.