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 (63340)	3/15/2003 7:43:49 PM
From: BWAC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Well it most definitely isn't FASB's job to set executive compensation. It is the job of the SEC in its simplest form to protect shareholders and insure financial integrity. Now? Anyone ever try to jump thru the SEC hurdles to get a compensation reform issue on the proxy? You can't. The company, in cooperation with the SEC, will invoke numerous reasons that your proposal can be omitted and ignored. So the SEC is passing the buck. And shifting the backlash focus onto easy, but irrelevant to the problem and solution, targets such as expensing options. You want excessive compensation packages and excessive management option grants stopped, then the shareholders must be allowed to set forth and pass binding resolutions. Without the blocking of the SEC.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63340)	3/15/2003 7:50:27 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

I disagree- first of all, why were arguments about the amount of rank and file grants heard at all, if it isn't "FASB's job"?? Many arguments were presented to the FASB by letter during the comment period, some by hi tech professionals like you, that have no absolutely no relevancy to the question of whether stock options are a legitimate expense and how best to expense them. Simply making or presenting an argument to the FASB does not in itself make the argument germane to the FASB decision making process. I challenge you to show me any "finding" by the FASB where the FASB has made a subjective, value judgment regarding how many options are a good thing, who should get them, and whether options are good or bad. Do you seriously think that the United States of America has put the FASB in charge of social policy and compensation policies for corporations? I mean, come on Lizzie; the FASB is not the Russian Politburo of the 1960s. I believe the entire motivation for options expensing is a kind of revenge for the excesses of the bad companies in the 90s who are now gone for the most part. Individuals feel "ripped off" and govt doesn't want it to happen again. THAT is the true motivation for options expensing and everyone knows it... Uh huh, right. Then how do you explain the fact that the independent FASB came to the same decision to recommend expensing options on the income statement in 1993/4, long before the bubble and the subsequent crash? How do you explain that expensing stock options would be consistent with the reporting requirements for every other kind of equity based employee compensation that is already in place? The FASB's logic for recognizing stock options as a compensation expense has been consistent and has not changed over the last decade. Regards, Huey