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: GVTucker who wrote (63391)	3/18/2003 12:12:05 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

What I'm trying to determine is whether 70mm in options "expense" (or double that if they are going to apply some sort of risk premium like you are asking Cisco to do) is going to be fully disclosed in all the documentation coming from the sell side at IPO. That is going to make virtually every IPO look like they are bleeding red ink. Sure some financial players who understand the intricacies of this whole options "expense" mess will ignore the numbers, I'm not sure that is optimal- for one thing, I as a startup company insider would want a true, fair price for my company and not some "wink wink nudge nudge" situation where only the financial world knows to ignore the numbers we are putting out- while everyone else (intl investors, individuals) thinks my company is a dog. Basically, if google is a star, I think the numbers should show it is a star, and not make it look like a dog so that the fund managers can buy in cheap while the founders of the company get nothing much. Thats only fair don't you think? BTW this discussion makes it look like you don't think options are real expenses.