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: Stock Farmer who wrote (64588)	9/15/2003 3:16:09 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Respond to of 77400

John, Comparison between companies is a fundamental principle behind why we have standardized accounting. It is so that we can make reasonable objective comparisons between very different businesses. And so that we can measure the efficiency of the management we have selected to manage our capital. And so that we can determine whether it is a good idea to shift our capital elsewhere. And a host of others. Standardized accounting can be and is a bad idea to the extent that it produces results that are inferior in accuracy and appropriateness for any particular company as all companies are attempted to be forced into the same hole, independent of whether it is round or square. Companies that grant stock and options ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from those that do not. Trying to treat both under the same standard risks serious unintended consequences. To assert otherwise, you are either intentionally misrepresenting the truth because it undermines an argument you don't want to lose, or being difficult, or you are indeed clueless... You are free to hold your own opinions and do your own analysis, but you are NOT free to ascribe intentions to me simply because my opinions and analysis differ from yours. Regards, Don

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (64588)	9/15/2003 4:00:57 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

John, I feel the need to remind you of something, You think we randomly pick up management off the street and ask them to run your company, not caring whether they are doing as good or as bad a job as other candidates? You don't compare the prospective return on capital between investments? You choose between alternative investments based on random and whimsical criteria? Shareholders authorize the expenditure (and diminishing of their wealth in the process) on accounting to simultaneously satisfy these and other rational processes. Which involve comparison! Comparison between companies is a fundamental principle behind why we have standardized accounting. It is so that we can make reasonable objective comparisons between very different businesses. And so that we can measure the efficiency of the management we have selected to manage our capital. And so that we can determine whether it is a good idea to shift our capital elsewhere. And a host of others. A few months ago you and I and some others were involved in a conversation on this very matter (surprise!) on the Intel thread. Some there were under some strange impression that these shareholder executive pay proposals were binding, or that management of Intel and Apple (in those cases) were obliged to adhere to them. In other words, it seems that many shareholders feel that micromanagement of the executives is somehow appropriate. Your post almost implies this. As you are well aware, those executive pay proposals from last summer were essentially ignored by tech company management. It kindof reminds me of the old quote, "you can sue for divorce but you can't sue for marriage"... basically the deal is, if you want Chambers or Jobs running your company then they set the rules within legal limits and your best bet might be to lobby congress but trying to influence their decisions when it is clear how Chambers and Jobs want to treat options, is fairly futile.