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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (160015)	3/31/2004 1:14:39 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 164684

share grants sound reasonable to me. I agree about the expensing issue, I never wanted expensing because options are not cash expenses, and that black sholes approach was just crazy in my view. But I stopped caring because at this point, with the massive wage deflation I see around me for engineering (the mid level jobs), it is important to get these executive salaries under control and however it is achieved I am for it. We have cases where shareholders are voting for options expensing and other alternative compensation packages, as was the case with HP recently and the BOD is ignoring the shareholders and continuing to dole out the pay and perks. The system is a mess at the top.

To: SI Dave who wrote (160015)	3/31/2004 11:20:39 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

This view of expensing does not fit with reality IMO. Options should be valued at the point when they are granted -- they form compensation at that moment, and their value is the market value at that point in time. Changes in the value of the options are irrelevant from that moment on. It is compensation -- the value of compensation is the value at the moment when the compensation is provided, not the value of the compensation at some other point in time.