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 (174671)	5/21/2003 12:14:54 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

As far as I know, there are no bag fulls of money descending on Washington fighting for expensing of stock options on the income statement. I can't disagree with you more. I think unions, and pension funds who have larger bags full of money than the tech lobby are fighting FOR the expensing of options. At least part of the reason they want this is typical union 'little guy vs management" BS. Some of it is legitimate in its attempt to control fraud.

To: hueyone who wrote (174671)	5/26/2003 3:17:49 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

This is a good article overall about shareholder rebellion. siliconvalley.com BTW I believe unions are bankrolling the options expensing debate on the opposite side of the tech industry, so therefore I think more money is on the pro-expensing side at this point. When corporate sales and stock prices tumbled as the economy soured, executives slashed costs by firing workers. In many cases, those layoffs helped executives meet performance targets that allowed them to reap big bonuses, angering some large unions. This is the "little guy vs mgmt" baloney you get when unions come into the picture. Also this article says what we already know, that shareholder votes are non binding. There was some discussion on this thread a week or so ago regarding that issue.