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 (178220)	5/29/2004 10:53:48 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

That's a posit of the anti-expensing crowd, for which I've never seen a cogent argument. You got one? Yes- take two companies, RHAT and JNPR, since their exception and deduct option expenses every quarter and compare these "expenses" to actual expense at exercise. The black scholes model is off by a factor of 10, simply because JNPR for example issued a TON of options from 98-2000 when their stock was gyrating madly, and shortly thereafter proceeded to lay these people off. Almost all black scholes expenses from 99 expired worthless. It always works this way, companies hire in their boom times and the business cycle kicks in. But JNPR would have paid dearly for worthless options with BS. I am certain congress won't go for this. Whenever I bring up JNPR or RHAT, all I hear is "yes but it works for Cisco". So what. The USA is not a country that exists only for mature companies. If bs doesn't work for up and coming growth companies then it doesn't work, it seems to me. I'll bet you would have expensing now if you didn't latch on to this obviously flawed model. And I am certain that issues with valuation are THE problem with options for new issues, despite all the claims to the contrary from the "experts" here (who don't appear to be winning this battle)