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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (28879)	2/18/2003 3:04:29 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<No. All it does is reduce the outstanding share count and increase the value of the company per outstanding share, while keeping the total value of the company constant.> Exactly.... it moves money from the current shareholders pocket into the pocket of a new shareholder. Therefore, the next moment in time sees the previous shareholders value potentially change... since statements should reflect accurate accounting for the shareholders of NOW, it should be reflected when their shares value has changed. 1.) It's all semantics... under your scenario we could just double our shares, give them all to the new CEO for the next 5 years of work and 'assume' no expense in getting the guy to current shareholders who have seen their holdings in 'the company' fall in 1/2. 2.)Or you can double the amount of stock, give it to Yahoo to put your banners up for the next 3 years, and assume it cost you nothing. The fact is this question plays itself out throughout the business world, in every aspect of the economy. Shares vs cash compensaton and the tax man, etc. It's all simply paperwork, and the way you look at it... I don't think either is necessarily right or wrong, probably depends on which examply you use: Under 2 you could argue that since YHOO accepted your stock it INCREASES the value of the entire company and in fact maybe even total value of the 50% that used to be 100%!! But under other circumstances it indeed costs current sharholders REAL economic value. Your argument does not change that fact... one could argue there is economic cost and be correct, or that there is not... and be correct. DAK