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: RetiredNow who wrote (63587)	4/17/2003 9:45:41 AM
From: BWAC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

<But you know, shareholders do have voting rights. So really shareholders CAN vote down a stock option plan. The problem is that shareholders don't vote and individual shareholders hardly ever hold the majority. The institutional holders on the other hand are just part of the rubber stamp parade. > Partly true. The shareholders may have voting rights, but they actually have little to no rights to force the BOD to act on their vote. Their vote can be essentially ignored in many cases by the BOD if so chosen. Nonbinding. So this needs to be changed. Institutions are another problem. Mainly the Mutual Fund industry which is rubber stamping these excesses AGAINST the mutual fund owners best interest. Failing in their fiduciary duties to oversee investments. Point is. Option excesses exist. If you want it stopped, the expensing theory (as wrong as it is btw) is NOT the way to stop the excesses. It doesn't address the root of the issue. Which is BOD and CEO's taking advantage of shareholder ignorance, apothy, lack of enforceable rights, and fiduciary failures in the Mutual Fund industry.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (63587)	4/17/2003 12:09:35 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Mind, Here is a guy, John Hussman, with an options expensing proposal similar to what has been talked about on this thread from time to time---first setting the expense value at date of grant, but then adjusting the expense value over the life of the option as the time premium runs out and stock prices change. As I have mentioned before, I could go either way on this issue---expensing at date of grant with no further changes in response to declining time value and changing stock prices, or expensing at date of grant with further adjustments in response to declining time value and changing stock prices, but I think a proposal for expensing like Hussman's will meet less resistance than setting the expense one time at date of grant with no further adjustments. How and why stock options should be expensed from corporate earnings. John P. Hussman, Ph.D. hussman.net Regards, Huey