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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (177334)	4/1/2004 9:19:42 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan Gilmore just wrote an article that expresses my sentiments on options exactly. Silicon Valley: Stop whining and give constructive ideas The fat lady is singing on stock options. And Silicon Valley would be wise to stop whining. The executives who get giant options grants as part of their lucrative compensation have surely calculated their value, or at least someone must have run the numbers for them (and the company) in contract negotiations. If the industry wants to make the proverbial lemonade from what it considers a lemon, it should help FASB come up with valuation methods that give investors a more realistic understanding of options' impact. The accounting board effectively invited such assistance in its proposal. But if the industry wants to keep insisting it's Silicon Valley's way or the highway, it'll end up alienating even its friends. Using the options debate to threaten even more offshoring of jobs is not a smart tactic, by the way. (yes I totally agree with this) Whining time is over. Investors and financial analysts will learn, if they didn't know already, to go beyond earnings-per-share numbers to see how companies are really doing relative to their industry peers. siliconvalley.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (177334)	4/1/2004 9:24:03 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 186894

OT .. Lizzie, re "the anti-options expensing argument in the past was always applied to engineering talent, not to executives.I>" I should know better than to ask, but ... what the heck does that mean? It's OK to go ahead and expense options to execs .. but not the options to engineers? Vice versa? Ron

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (177334)	4/2/2004 12:03:43 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Lizzie, RE: "the anti-options expensing argument in the past was always applied to engineering talent...(but)they no longer have an argument against options expensing in the engineering ranks" Why do you think options aren't important for engineers? Your opinion goes counter to the industry's concerns. I'll give you an example to prove my point: We have an employee that can save as much as $200k on a component order, which more than pays for his salary. Meanwhile, China has heard of him and he said they called him at work and told him they needed more people with his skillsets. Meanwhile, you incorrectly claim how the USA handles options no longer matters, when China is breathing down the necks of the USA, with their better policy. Well, try to tell me it doesn't matter in the scenario above. Engineers can be more valuable than executives. RE: "Anyone can see we are in no danger of losing executive leadership, when we pay executives anywhere from 10-50x what they can get in other countries" I agree with this statement relative to all countries except China, where their policy is unfairly more advantageous. Due to the potential ruling, I poked around and checked out comp plans overseas and yes, so far, we continue to have an advantage in countries like India, Europe, etc, and also China, because we pay more salary & options, but not how options are taxed in China. That has to be addressed by the US, regardless if the person is an engineer or executive. Regards, Amy J