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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (13671)	9/15/2003 7:00:48 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 306849

Nice "Doomsday Hammer" on FNM today: stockcharts.com[h,a]daclyyay[pb50!b200][vc60][iUb14!La12,26,9]&pref=G Disclosure: LONG FNM puts.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (13671)	9/15/2003 7:08:25 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I don't like expensing to be sure, but I would support something that took the difference between exercise price and strike, netted against paid in capital and called it an expense as long as there was some sort of provision to the company for spikes in stock prices. Maybe allowing averaging across a few years or something if the stock is up 200%. Something like that. Skeeter on some things I agree with you but I still remember a conversation I had with you a while back where you thought the bulk of Cisco's 21 billion dollars came from options exercising, even though they bring in 4.5 billion per qtr with 70%+ gross margins. There are a number of people on the clown thread that for some reason choose to believe even the richest tech companies never made a dime. It is some sort of philosophical agenda and I don't get it. Anyway you have to agree that most of the people in the US don't have this objective, of trying to show our best companies in the worst possible light. We have an issue with the way startup companies are funded and more than anything my belief is that options expensing will be "on hold" until this is resolved. Google for example, try to come up with an options expensing proposal that makes Google look like the star that it is. If a way to handle options expensing can be created that doesn't make every startup look like a dog with fleas, then I'm sure it will be implemented. Otherwise no go, because we can't just shut off the wealth engine in the US, I'm sure thats the way congress sees it.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (13671)	9/16/2003 12:53:10 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

My own personal experience with options - 1. Told I would be a millionaire. 2. Told my options would pay for my 80 hour weeks (and more!) 3. Company does a reverse split before going public, halving my shares, lays me off to cut overhead - has software to sell, doesn't need developers. 4. Saw the value of the company on going public didn't make me a millionaire - but WOULD have been a nice payday, except that I couldn't sell, since I was an "insider" 5. By the time I could sell, the price was a fraction of what it had been on going public - so I held. 6. Company delisted, contemplates a 9 for 1 reverse split AGAIN to attempt to get re-listed, also contemplates going "private" 7. Use certificates for asswipe. So, stock options aren't necessarily wonderful!