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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (173554)	3/14/2003 5:16:45 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Thread, "Alert: The alert was issued following the death Thursday of an unidentified 50-year-old American businessman. He had flown from Shanghai to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi, where he was admitted to a private international hospital with severe respiratory problems. " cnn.com cnn.com Mystery death sparks health alert "In Hong Kong, more medical staff have fallen ill with flu-like symptoms. By midday on Thursday, 32 hospital staff had been admitted, with 19 of them showing initial signs of pneumonia" Yikes, this thing is spreading. Lizzie - outsourcing at its worse. I hope USA companies put a one week freeze on all trips to/from HK/SH/H until they get a handle on it. No way would I send someone over there right now. I know someone who is going in two weeks, but by then, they should have an assessment of what's going on (and whether or not to cancel the trip.) Creepy. Regards, Amy J

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (173554)	3/14/2003 11:07:34 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

If I were offered the chance to exchange pay for options now, there would be no way I would take the bait because I don't think technology will recover intact from this onslaught. So it seems that we may finally beginning to reach a period where it could be construed that employees are forcing companies to expense stock options in a sense---by demanding cash instead of options. This would lend suppport to the conclusion that this compensation expense was there all along, but the company was just able to temporarily mask it by not reporting the expense on the income statement. Although in your case, your decision to take cash is related to concern over a possible FASB decision that would require companies to expense stock options which in turn you believe would depress stock prices, I suspect other employees may have come to the same conclusion to take cash instead of options even prior to the recent FASB announcement that increased the odds of stock options being expensed. The thing about not expensing stock options, imo, is that is similar to a cortizone shot that temporarily masks the real underlying, economic performance of the firm. Eventually the real, underlying performance of the firm comes out regardless of what the FASB does. And like a cortizone shot, the ability of the shot to provide feel good results diminishes over time. Imo, companies like Intel will be better off by facing the music now, and expensing stock options on the income statement now. I think Intel still has an opportunity to run a sound stock options policy before things get totally out of hand. Other companies, like SEBL, for instance, have gone off the deep end. The company is a cortizone shot addict and it is finding it harder and harder to find any way to get relief and get the company on track for legitimate economic performance. I am in agreement with Carl that going down the road of merrily increasing the grant rate to the inner circle is a very disturbing trend that can lead to bad results for everyone concerned, including the inner circle if they plan to hold any long term stock. It is short sighted management imo, something that I would not normally associate with Intel. On the other hand, Intel has some pressure to to be competitive with their executive compensation packages with the rest of the tech industry, which in its entirey is based on a questionable business model---that of giving out lots of stock options and treating them as though they are free on the financial reports. In some respects, I think it is entirely possible that a FASB decision to expense stock options would be a blessing in disguise for Intel, and perhaps get them back on track to managing for legitimate shareholder value---like they unquestionably did for many years. JMO, Huey

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (173554)	3/14/2003 11:45:38 AM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 186894

If I were offered the chance to exchange pay for options now, there would be no way I would take the bait because I don't think technology will recover intact from this onslaught. Edit: Please consider this post the operative post rather than my previous post, which I was unaware has posted. So it seems that we may finally beginning to reach a period where it could be construed that employees are forcing companies to expense stock options in some sense---by demanding cash instead of options. This lends support to the conclusion that this compensation expense was present all along, but the company was just able to temporarily mask it by not reporting the expense on the income statement. Although in your case, your decision to take cash is related to concern over a possible FASB decision that would require companies to expense stock options (which in turn you believe would depress stock prices), I suspect other employees may have come to the same conclusion to take cash instead of options even prior to the recent FASB announcement that increased the odds of stock options being expensed. The thing about not expensing stock options, imo, is that it is similar to a cortisone shot that temporarily makes you feel good and masks the real underlying performance of your body. Just as a person, despite cortisone shots, has to eventually deal with the underlying performance of their own body, companies heavily employing stock options and not expensing them eventually have to face the real, underlying economic performance of the firm. And the ability of the cortisone shots, or granting stock options without expensing them, to provide feel-good results eventually diminishes over time. Imo, companies like Intel will be better off by facing the music sooner rather than later, and expensing stock options on the income statement now. I think Intel still has an opportunity to make a rapid adjustment to expensing stock options on the income statement, and get back to running a solid, profitable company with a reasonable stock options program where options are expensed, before things get totally out of hand. Other companies, like SEBL for example, have already gone off the deep end imo. That company is a cortisone shot addict, and it is finding it harder and harder to get relief from the shots and harder and harder to get the company on track for legitimate economic performance. I am in agreement with Carl that going down the road of merrily increasing the grant rate to the inner circle (if indeed this is what is happening) is a very disturbing trend that can lead to bad results for everyone concerned, including the inner circle if they plan to hold any stock for the long term. It is short sighted management imo, something that I would not normally associate with Intel. On the other hand, Intel has pressure to write executive compensation packages that are competitive with the rest of the tech industry, which in its entirety, I now believe is based on an unsustainable business model---that of giving out lots of stock options and treating them as though they are no cost on the financial reports. I believe an early FASB decision to require companies to expense stock options could indeed be a blessing in disguise for Intel and all its shareholders---including outsiders, insiders, inner circle, employees---everyone concerned, and could get Intel back on track to managing for legitimate shareholder value sooner rather than later. Best regards, Huey