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: rkral who wrote (64473)	9/11/2003 11:47:37 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 77397

Great post, rkral. Thx for the info. So Lizzie was right, options grants have decreased appreciably in the last 3 years. Still 141 million seems like an awful lot to me. But at least the trend is downwards. That's good for shareholders.

To: rkral who wrote (64473)	9/13/2003 3:21:46 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

Ron, Thanks for your post showing Cisco's expenses to include stock option expense when measured at grant or measured at exercise. Not to my surprise, the expense calculated at exercise is much higher than the expense calculated at grant. Of course the opposite could be true when measured over some other period. Over longer periods of time, I suspect the sum total of stock option expense measured at exercise comes within reasonable range of the sum total of expense measured at grant. double counting argument. It keeps popping up like a new cork, even though it's quite old. Yes it gets tiresome, but I think it mainly persists in online stock chat forums. Very few people of any standing in the finance or accounting fields give the double counting argument any credence at all---imo. online.wsj.com Regards, Huey