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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (174256)	4/25/2003 10:29:52 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

If I were an exec at Intel, I'd be phoning in my voluntary decision not to take options for one year for the company (and their own) greater good. It's really pathetic, isn't it? The pigs can no longer see past their own fat bellies. Steve Jobs couldn't stop feeding at the trough long enough to head off a shareholder revolt. On another note, I am in complete agreement with you that expensing stock options is a separate issue from corporate governance, although any one with even a tiny modicum of logic can forsee how expensing options might impact the quantity of stock options issued at some companies that have gone overboard with options in the past. After all, management tends to be judged by reported earnings and has an incentive to maximize reported earnings. Nevertheless, whether or not to expense stock options is an accounting issue, not a governance issue, and there are a great many folks with plenty of higher education that are in agreement that stock options are a legitimate accounting expense. And FASB looks at this problem solely from an accounting viewpoint, not from the viewpoint of whether or not stock options are a good form of compensation, not from a viewpoint as to how expensing will impact the distribution of stock options across the company, not from a viewpoint of whether it will result in executives getting paid more or less, and not from the viewpoint of whether or not it helps or hinders innovation in Silicon Valley. These are all important and interesting issues, but not within the scope of the FASB's job. Congress needs to wake up. Actually, Technet and AEA are paying Congress lots of money to wake up. But do you really think a bunch of lawyers (sorry all knowing enlightened one) looking for their next campaign contribution should be setting accounting standards? What are their qualifications? Why not let the FASB do the job it was set up to do? In spite of the Duke's incredible charge, these people understand accounting theory quite well, thank you. ST pain for LT gain. Many of the so called visionary leaders of Silly Con Valley seemed to have lost their vision, or else there has been a dearth of good management since the 1980s. Steadily increasing the grant rate for options and repricing as the stock price goes down doesn't correlate to management with great long term vision imho. Regards, Huey