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 (63648)	4/20/2003 1:27:40 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

It's funny, Lizzie, but I advocated that method awhile ago as well. I think B.S. is not the optimal method. A good method would be to true it up every quarter after a recalculation. In addition, a final true up should be done upon exercise. Then we wouldn't be having all these debates, because it would be an accurate reflection of the situation at the date the quarter ends, every quarter.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63648)	4/20/2003 1:55:59 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Still lots of tap dancing and foot shuffling going on in your reply imo. "I suggest expensing the actual value of options at exercise... nobody can really argue with that... " seems pretty contradictory to "I don't think there are any true expenses there". If Options are essentially disallowed Great companies like Intel successfully used options for years at tolerable grant rates that would not have impacted earnings in a material way had those options been expensed. It is basically from 1996 on that tech management in Silicon Valley realized that the owners were not minding the store and grant rates subsequently skyrocketed out of control. If options were expensed, we would merely return to saner grant rates imo. Regards, Huey

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63648)	4/20/2003 7:21:45 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

OT ... Lizzie, re "my position all along has been that options cause dilution only ... " You are wrong IMHO. Consider the following scenario. A company acts like a covered call writer. It buys 1000 shares of its own stock at $10 (all $ are per share), and simultaneously grants 1000 option shares to its (collective) employee at an exercise price of $10. Using an acceptable option valuation model, the fair value is determined to be $4. Some time later, the employee exercises the option for 1000 shares when the stock is $25. The covered call position is now closed. The number of shares is exactly the same as before the covered call position was opened. Therefore, due to this option grant and exercise, the number of shares outstanding is unchanged. There is no anti-dilution, and there is no dilution. But does no dilution mean there was no expense? The FASB says the expense is $4. John Shannon and mindmeld say the expense should be $15, I think. Huey would probably accept either number, as long as the darned options get expensed. But you say "options cause dilution only". IOW, you say options expense is $0. Since your position is at the extreme, and at $0, don't you think your position is the most likely one to be incorrect? More likely incorrect than $15? Even more likely incorrect than $4? I personally agree with the $4 FASB number. And then what's the $11 difference between the FASB number and the Shannon/mindmeld number? It is unrealized capital gain to the employee, IMHO. If the employee had purchased the $10 option for $4 on an option exchange, exercised the option, and sold the stock for $25, the employee would have a capital gain of $11. The ESO should be no different. Regards, Ron