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 (177323)	4/1/2004 11:39:26 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

But the thing that really matters more than anything else, is what are the other countries going to do. Hi Amy, We pursued this discussion last December, and imho, we ended with you failing to provide any evidence or supportable argument that expensing stock options is going to put the USA at a competitive advantage vis-a-vis other countries. This post archives many of our posts on this subject: #reply-19647323 Re: Stock options and international competitiveness Amy's comment: I was discussing the Chinese government's handling of stock options. Huey's comments: Ok, we will remove India from the discussion and focus on China, but our discussion started out by you suggesting that expensing options was going to put us at a disadvantage for competing internationally without you naming any particular country #reply-19463024 Amy's quote: But now US companies could be encumbered by expensing, while our international companies are not. So our costs go up, while overseas their costs go down. I responded by posting and documenting the International Accounting Standard Boards policy stating that they were recommending global standards that would require all countries to expense stock options, with links to IASB documents in both this #reply-19463063 and in this #reply-19466955. Then you tried to cover your argument by changing your original conclusion (which ostensibly applied to most countries) and asked us to prove whether the IASB policy applies to China, while also strongly implying that China's stock option policy was somehow more favorable: Amy--It's illogical to make the USA less competitive than China. #reply-19500677 But since you (Amy) are the one suggesting that expensing stock options will make us less competitive with China, it up to you to support your point. Rkal asked you to enlighten us regarding China's use of stock options saying this: You've apparently found a source indicating China will not be expensing stock options. Would you please provide a link?" #reply-19500888 You failed to respond to his request or to illuminate what was going on in China. Then a few days ago, you once again implied that China has a better stock option policy in #reply-19637560, with this statement: You can structure accounting any way you want, but if China has a better option policy than your country and is attracting more entrepreneurs and engineers as a result, your accounting won't matter because your company may not exist for long. Once again, I asked you to enlighten us regarding China's stock options policies and received back from you a pile of vague, stream of consciousness posting, and then this last post which once again fails to provide a single live link. So here is where we are Amy. You made a blanket statement that expensing stock options was going to put us at a competitive disadvantage internationally (not mentioning any particular countries) which was largely shot down by me noting that the IASB is leading a charge towards global accounting standards that would encourage all countries to expense stock options. Then you changed your conclusion to expensing stock options will put us a disadvantage to competing with China, but you have failed to support your China conclusion with any data. A second argument to pursue, once we find out whether or not China will follow international standards of accounting once stock options are expensed, is whether or not expensing stock options will give a rogue country who does not expense stock options any competitive advantage over countries who do expense stock options. I don't necessarily think it will. But the argument for now is for you to support your contention that expensing stock options will put us at a competitive disadvantage to China or any other country in the globe. If you are unable to support your conclusion and can offer zero substantive, live links to support your conclusion, as certainly appears to be the case, then please stop referring to expensing stock options as being regulation likely to hurt USA's international competitiveness. JMO, Huey

To: Amy J who wrote (177323)	4/1/2004 11:45:21 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Make no mistake, I'm the one in the minority, not you. I have heard from many people who claim that the FASB's proposal will limit stock options awards. Each and every time, I ask why they believe that to be so. I have yet to hear a legitimate answer. The bottom line is that no matter what the FASB proposes, it will not affect a company's cash flow at all. It shouldn't affect how a company compensates its employees. One thing I can say confidently is that while some don't have any answers, the justifications that Intel's board has for being against stock options expensing are truly misguided.