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 (64710)	9/17/2003 2:42:29 PM
From: Boca_PETE	Respond to of 77400

rkral: RE: ("P.S. What is "IHO"?") IHO = IN MY humble OPINION. Don;t have time now, but I will read your learned post later today and post any comment then. For sure, nobody can accuse you of not being tenacious <grn> Thanks. P

To: rkral who wrote (64710)	9/18/2003 9:10:03 PM
From: Boca_PETE	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 77400

rkral: re: ("A dogmatic statement of opinion, without support, .. isn't likely to be very persuasive") You certainly can choose to see the arguments I have constantly repeated [(1) what proponents refer to as "stock option compensation expense will never result in a company cash or other asset outflow, and (2) because their terms usually do not allow for their sale or other free transferability, they have zero value] in my posts in support of my opinion that employee stock options solely represent a capital raising transaction, not a "compensation expense" to be recognized on the the granting company's books as "absense of support". Do you always declare points of view that disagree with your view "dogmatic statements"? re: ("excerpt from "For the Last Time: Stock Options Are an Expense" by Zvi Bodie, Robert S. Kaplan, and Robert C. Merton") The authors of this article are famous investment experts, not accounting experts. They assert in the quotes in your post that "Economically, the two positions (KapCorp and MerBod) are identical." Differential nuance they fail to focus upon is marketability. With KapCorp, workers use part of their salary to buy publicly traded options. With MerBod, workers are given non-tradeable options that cannot be sold. If Merbod worker buy share from the company, they receive their compensation upon sale of those shares from other shareholders, not from the company. Therefore, Merbod got its shareholders to pay its workers directly and rightly from my viewpoint should show better net income than KapCorp. For these reasons, I disagree that the two situations are "an identical" -------------- I'm sure you feel unable to reason with me. I know I feel unable to reason with you. Hell is a place where there is no reason. Perhaps we have both gone there and don't know it. P