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: hueyone who wrote (63348)	3/16/2003 1:16:09 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

bury your head in the sand and pretend the expense is not there I have said repeatedly that I agree that options cause dilution which should be reported on in some way. You are trying to call an "opportunity cost" which is grossly exaggerated for most high growth companies (due to some options valuation metric which is intended to measure risk) as a real expense which it is not. This is even if there was a market for employee stock options, which there isn't. Don't bother trying once again to tell me there is a real expense because I have participated in plenty of P&Ls for engineering depts of 50 or more people- many of which compensated folks almost entirely with options and this caused absolutely no money to fly out the door. Quite the contrary in fact, when we wanted people to work their asses off, but we had no money to pay them, we would issue options grants, in some cases knowing full well they would expire worthless because the stock was overvalued. Almost every article I read on this options expensing issue has the term "corporate governance" strewn all the way through it.

To: hueyone who wrote (63348)	3/16/2003 1:57:29 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

OT ... Huey, re "opponents of reporting stock option compensation, who are in favor of continuing to allow companies to continue to cook the books" While I agree options should be expensed, I must object to your continued use of the phrase "cook the books". I will assume you are exaggerating. Unfortunately, many people can't distinguish between exaggeration and FUD. If they incorrectly perceive FUD, you have no chance of convincing anyone, particularly an opponent of options expensing, of anything. If you aren't exaggerating, note that the companies are merely exercising their right to choose the "intrinsic value method" of SFAS 123. This is accounting per GAAP. Accounting per GAAP is not cooking the books, IMHO. Regards, Ron