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: Amy J who wrote (176316)	12/30/2003 2:32:59 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Imo, you are still failing to distinguish between being in favor of properly recognizing stock option compensation on the income statement and the arguments as to what is the most favorable form of employee compensation. Your arguments tying being in favor of expensing stock option compensation on the income statement to being against employee stock option compensation have no better basis than an argument tying being in favor of recording cash compensation on the income statement to being against cash compensation. Intel got to be where it is today, because of options. This is possible, but do you have any evidence that Intel would have had less stock option compensation or not have similarly succeeded if it had recognized its stock option expenses on the income statement? For most of the years that Rkal has provided us with data, it looked like Intel would be quite profitable even if the company had expensed stock options. I suspect Andy Grove and many of the Intel leaders and employees were capable and smart enough to have successfully built the Intel company without hiding stock option compensation expenses. but if China has a better option policy than your country You have brought up China and India again. I am under the distinct impression that the boom in hi tech activity in those countries is tied to having a well educated, low cost IT workforce, not to having more favorable stock option policies. I can recall Rkal asking you to provide links substantiating these countries' accounting policies with regard to stock options, but I can't recall you ever providing us with any links. If you have responded to Rkal's request with links, please direct me towards your post. I am interested in reading about their policies. Meanwhile, imo, the International Accounting Standards Board will continue to work towards its long run goal of world accounting standards that include expensing of stock options on the income statements. iasb.org.uk{AA7A99AB-8987-467D-8B4E-3720CD9F3DAB}&n=4120 JMO, Huey

To: Amy J who wrote (176316)	12/30/2003 8:10:17 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy: Intel did not become the dominant uP company because of stock options. Intel became the dominant uP company under Grove since Grove was intelligent enough to add capacity thereby preventing competition from adding capacity, innovating the uP and focusing on a branding strategy. Those are the three keys that launched Intel to where it is today. On the other hand, when a company chooses not to expense stock options, it should make any investor wonder why. Stock options are a source of economic dilution to a company's investors. Stock options have a cost associated with them, plain and simple. By requiring all companies to expense stock options, this may lead companies to be not as charitable which will increase shareholder value. As far as I can tell, no one is outlawing the use of stock options. Stock options will still be issued. What the expensing of stock options will prevent is the excesses that happened in the late 1990's and early 2000's. I would also refer you to my example which details how one gets diluted by stock options.