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: GVTucker who wrote (174563)	5/14/2003 11:07:49 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

GVT, Expensing options sends the right message to all investors, that the main mission of financial statements is to present a FAIR* view of a company, not a biased view.* This is nonsense. The main mission of financial statements is to present an ACCURATE view of the company to the existing shareholders, who are the ones paying for the exercise, and the ones with the power and responsibility to react, even if the reaction were only to sell their shares. While current reporting is certainly far from accurate, expensing options would be far worse. In spite of the straw man arguments made that the opponents of expensing claim a zero cost of option compensation, the fact is that the real cost of a proper (not existing) option expensing plan would fully and completely appear in dilution. It only requires that one notice the fact that most of the shareholder vote proposals on option expensing are sponsored by union pension funds to realize that the options expensing question is not really about accuracy, but about power. If you think that the interest of CEOs is unaligned with shareholders, compare it with the alignment of the interests of those shareholders with union bosses. Unions perceive the option expensing question as a backdoor way of influencing, and hopefully looting or destroying, companies whose management, employees and shareholders would never accept union influence voluntarily. Regards, Don

To: GVTucker who wrote (174563)	5/20/2003 9:34:23 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi GV, RE: "Outside of a group of perhaps 6 or so senior execs, no one else at Intel has an effect on the stock price of more than a fraction of a penny." I don't think you fully grasp the option culture. The train that said it could, did. While in the immediate sense I completely agree with you, in the long-term sense (>3 yrs) I would disagree with you. Ask any retiree that was involved in the Apollo project, what the Apollo's mantra was. Would you hire someone that had the attitude they couldn't positively impact the stock? That's what they're there for, but if they think they can't, they can always work down the street at, "we don't think we can do it" No Impact Inc. On another note, fortunately for us, most foreign countries don't understand the highly competitive nature that stock ownership brings to our industry. (But I think you are in agreement with me on that point.) I've gotten swamped lately, so my posting is really coming to a halt these days. Regards, Amy J