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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (65530)	5/15/2004 4:30:47 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

OT .. Lizzie, re "I give you an example of a company that would have been screwed royally by BS (Juniper) and you keep asking me to prove it, prove it, prove it." You have claimed "expensing options at grant" makes no sense to you, but you would be acceptable to "expensing at exercise". This is the Cisco thread, so I proved Cisco's 34-quarter [ed: after-tax impact on net income] for expensing at-exercise would have been $6 billion WORSE than expensing-at-grant. So do you still think expense-at-exercise is the better choice? You have claimed Black-Scholes overstates expenses. In view of the Cisco long-term results, how do you then explain the $13.2 billion (at exercise expense) versus the $7.2 billion (at grant expense)? I've presented Cisco data (accurate to the best of my knowledge) that runs counter to your two claims ... so now you want to change the discussion to a Juniper or a RHAT without giving a sound reason why you thing the results would be different. Well, excuse me, but why don't YOU do the data-mining to prove YOUR point? Only examples, generalization, and WAGS or your part .. and proofs on my part is not an equitable debating situation. Ron