To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (65499 ) 5/14/2004 2:43:49 PM From: GVTucker Respond to of 77400 Lizzie, RE: OK GVTucker. See here's the thing. I have decided I now want options to be expensed and I am voiceing these concerns. You are shooting the messenger. Is that what the FASB does when congress voices the same concerns? I'd say game over then, the tech lobby wins it. You have known all along that expensing *at grant*, using an estimate (any estimate) is controversial. The only people who argue in favor of it tend to be financial folks. Other people with just a peripheral interest in financials (like me) don't like it, thats what most of congress is. Think about it from this perspective. Let's say that I start espousing the great benefits of Windows XP over Linux, and I relate to you a bunch of commonly held misconceptions about Linux and why nobody in their right mind would ever choose Linux given that option. Would you, software geek that you are, tell me that even though I'm wrong, we still should just throw Linux away, even though it is a superior OS to XP? No, of course not. Instead, you'd try to clear up the misconceptions to a person with little training in software. So now the shoe is on the other foot. Most everyone with a thorough understanding of finance and options pricing has a great deal of respect for the Black Scholes option pricing model. The people who don't like the model almost always bring up information that is just plain false. I'm not going to respond with something like, "Hey, great. Let's just throw out the best model available, since you don't believe it." No, that wouldn't be very smart. Instead, I'm trying to clear up your many misconceptions. If you choose not to listen, then there's not much I can do about that.