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: rkral who wrote (178118)	5/26/2004 9:26:31 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

rkral-- Using stock repurchases as a proxy for the costs of stock option compensation involves so many adjustments that it just isn't worth the time at all. For example, beyond what you discuss, you've also got to differentiate stock repurchases that counter the dilutive affect of stock options vs stock repurchases that are de facto dividends for Intel shareholders. Over the past three years, Intel's weighted average share count has declined by more than 300mm shares. This isn't just a result of some options that are no longer dilutive, either. Common shares outstanding before considering the dilutive affect of options has declined markedly, too, by around 200mm shares. But it doesn't stop there. Because Intel repurchased those shares at a price above book value, that caused book value per share to decline, even though I think it is a benefit to shareholders. Lotsa financial machination involved there. It is a lot easier as well as more accurate just to use the Black-Scholes calculation in the financials.

To: rkral who wrote (178118)	5/26/2004 2:16:54 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"Intel paid cash in the amount of $32B (actually $30.8B) ... to repurchase common stock. "Common stock repurchase" is not the same as "stock-based compensation", at least not to the FASB." Actually, it is $32,112M, 1996-2003 inclusive, check your math if you are so picky. Also, I don't care much about conforming to some artificial rules, FASB or not FASB, I just want some fairness within available information. As you might see, the whole intent of current reporting is to hide the real information about real scale of un-accounted labor compensation. As far as your 15% annum concern, yes, you are statistically correct. However, you should know the relation of your correctness to "lies" and "true lies", which you perfectly have demonstrated, and now insist on. - Ali