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 (63806)	5/4/2003 2:35:48 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

I'm not interested in arguing about whether options are real expenses anymore. More wordsmithing. Don't bother "plugging in" numbers into anything, your metrics were unknown Lol. You backed off your claim pretty quickly that no one can argue with expensing options at exercise when JS pointed out that it didn't result in putting your favorite companies in a good light. It seems abundantly clear that you have no interest in the merits of the arguments, but instead are simply interested in looking for ways to hype your wonderful Silly Con Valley companies. As far as the metrics being unknown, you are incorrect; I am quite sure that Buffett has been expensing options in his valuations of companies for his entire investment career; FASB brought Black Scholes to the forefront of public knowledge in 1993; and I believe the IRS has always allowed expensing of options at exercise, as measured by the difference between market and exercise price. He creates something from scratch and gets it off the ground (in other words he actually CREATES wealth like an entrepreneur is supposed to do).. and comes up with a solution based on his successful experience. He came up with a solution---companies should voluntarily come clean, do the right thing and expense options. From your point of view, Tom Siebel is a more successful entreprenuer than Buffett? I have never heard a more silly conclusion in my entire life. Even my piss ass little privately held company has produced more owner earnings than Tom Siebel's big shareholder financed software monstrosity has. (It isn't that hard to beat a negative number.<g>) And as for Buffett, he manages the biggest reinsurance business in the world and has built this insurance conglomerate from the ground up, and no one has ever managed better for long term shareholder/owner wealth than Buffett has. I think you must be confusing paying high compensation to Silicon Valley employees with creating shareholder wealth, but the two aren't the same. There are undoubtedly a great many outstanding business people in Silicon Valley, but by definition, not all of them can be outstanding, and it is my opinion that for every truly outstanding business leader, there are probably a 1000 wannabes that simply lack the skills to run a legitimately successful company. Yet in the Silly Con Valley economy of the nineties, the wannabes attracted capital and were paid like they were all Intels and Andy Groves of the late eighties and early ninties. Its time to separate the wheat from chaffe and send the capital to the real performers. Properly accounting for all of the expenses, including expensing stock options, will help begin that process. Regards, Huey

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63806)	5/4/2003 4:18:22 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Lizzie, you're right. It's about creating wealth. But it's not foremost about creating wealth for employees. And it's not foremost about creating wealth for insiders. And neither is it foremost about creating wealth for the shareholders of other companies. It's about FIRST creating wealth for shareholders, from which these other benefits should follow. But instead we have seen a culture arise where the first to the trough are employees and insiders. And then, perhaps, the shareholders of the companies which use the "productivity enhancements". And if there's anything left over after that, then that's left behind to divy up amongst the suckers who were dumb enough to buy the shares from someone smart enough to unload 'em. Now, maybe someone looking at the system purely as an owner, like that duffer Buffett, well, maybe he wouldn't appreciate all the philanthropic obligations that some seem to think ought to come with the title "shareholder". But me? Well, rather than be conned out of wealth, I prefer my generosity to be of the old fashioned kind. I'd rather just give it away than try to kid myself it's making me wealthy. John

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63806)	5/4/2003 9:18:08 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

I'm not interested in arguing about whether options are real expenses anymore which is all that this comes down to, and I don't care about Warren Buffett's opinion, UNLESS he creates something from scratch and gets it off the ground (in other words he actually CREATES wealth like an entrepreneur is supposed to do).. and comes up with a solution based on his successful experience. Well I guess you're interested in Buffett's opinion now. He took Berkshire Hathaway from absolutely nothing and created a giant business. In the process his flagship company, Geico, revolutionized the insurance industry. He created a heck of a lot more wealth than Apple or Seibel.