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: hueyone who wrote (174494)	5/11/2003 1:13:46 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

By the way, Oracle's CFO, Jeff Henley, had this to say back in October, but I haven't heard anything from him since. I suspect he got a great deal of flack from the rest of the tech industry over his statement. And I don't know whether Larry authorized his statement. The live link to the statement on Yahoo no longer works, but I posted his satement on a couple of threads at the time: #reply-18153001 (Oracle CFO)Mr Henley says that Oracle has long accepted that options "bear an economic cost", and the company would consider expensing them voluntarily. However, he also believes that the way the cost of options are calculated has not yet been resolved, and intends to play a full part in the debate that shapes that decision. It is my opinion that treating stock option compensation as if it has no cost, is a business model that can potentially lead to adverse, long term consequences for many companies, including all the participants--- executives, employees and shareholders. JMO, Huey

To: hueyone who wrote (174494)	5/11/2003 1:18:24 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

That Barrett and Bryant are currently willing to sign off on financial statements that are full of estimates and approximations as well as sign off on financial statements that claim a zero dollar value for stock option compensation, but now are saying they can't sign off on financial statements that estimate a value for stock option compensation because the estimates may not be precisely accurate, is unbelievably self serving and hypocritical imo. Well I'm sure there is an element of magnitude in this, after all some of the expensing proposals on the table indicate that companies like Cisco have never made a profit EVER, in their lifetime. It just flies in the face of reason that a company like Cisco with 4.5 billion in revs and 70% GMs have never made a profit EVER. That is the issue I suspect. Other estimates don't turn great companies from cash machines into total losers from an accounting perspective. This argument that expensing proponents put forth that literally every tech company who is successful, msft included are really drains on the US economy due to their money losing ways is really , really a hard sell. I'm sure the congresspeople from the misc. regions where these big companies are located are falling in line with Barrett and company- this would be Seattle, San Diego, Mass, Austin.

To: hueyone who wrote (174494)	5/12/2003 7:03:49 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

hueyone, re: That Barrett and Bryant are currently willing to sign off on financial statements that are full of estimates and approximations as well as sign off on financial statements that claim a zero dollar value for stock option compensation, but now are saying they can't sign off on financial statements that estimate a value for stock option compensation because the estimates may not be precisely accurate, is unbelievably self serving and hypocritical imo. A good point. Except that the reality is that CEO's and CFO's for any company like Intel have no choice but to sign. Imagine what would happen to the stock price if they refused. But my point on Bryant was outside the options controversy. Allowed to do his thing, I think Bryant would have made deeper cuts in costs over the last three years. He probably wouldn't have made all the silly Barrett acquisitions that have dragged down Intel earnings and wasted cash. Just a guess, I could be wrong. I think he's a very good CFO. Is he worth all those option grants, no. But it's slightly less onerous to me than the huge grants to the guys that are running divisions that are losing tons of money. John