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: GVTucker who wrote (64059)	5/15/2003 12:03:39 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 77400

Yes... I think we agree... When I wrote expected future difference, I meant a probability weighted average of the possible future differences (intrinsic value) at exercise. Similar to "expectation value" that we used to calculate for Quantum Mechanics back when I was in university. I believe Black Scholes is not predictive, it is however an estimate. Insofar as colloquial English often interchanges one of these for the other, there may be mere semantics separating you and Ron. John

To: GVTucker who wrote (64059)	5/15/2003 1:45:31 PM
From: bofp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Black-Scholes was formulated to value options at the time of issuance. Until someone else wins a Nobel Prize by identifying a better methodology, B-S is the last word on that topic. However, we are not trying to value options at the time of issuance. Employees come and go and many issued options do not vest. Current proponents of expensing options are advocating using Black-Scholes to value previously issued options at the time of vesting. This is akin to using a socket wrench to hammer nails. Essentially, this bastardized technique involves establishing the value of the option at the time of issue, but expensing it at the time of vesting. However, if the underlying value of the security and its volitility changes dramatically between issue and vest, the valuation of the option can become misleading, often comically so. This is why the B-S based methodology suggests that Cisco options vested in 2002 with a $40 strike price had significant value, even though common sense should tell anyone that the likelihood of those options expiring worthless was very high indeed. One solution would be to expense options as issued, adjusted for a predicted likelihood of vesting, but this has some issues vis a vis the matching principle. Frankly, I believe the best solution is to force companies to issue restricted stock grants rather than options. Stock grants are easily valued and transparent to shareholders. This has the exact same "benefit" claimed by Chambers - giving employees ownership - without the opaque accounting treatment. Call me cynical, but I think the main benefit to Cisco management is actually the opaque accounting treatment.