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: Elmer Phud who wrote (178332)	6/16/2004 9:54:04 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 186894

OT .. elmerp, re "It was just a bad analogy on your part." Nope, it was just bad understanding (of the point) on your part. Whether or not the option is exercised has nothing to do with it. Try to follow the scenarios below carefully. Skip the tax portions (in parentheses) if simplicity required. Scenario A: The holder of an open-market option purchases a call option for $X (after-tax). Scenario B: The holder of an equivalent employee stock option -- same company, same exercise, and then whatever additional is required so as to have the same value as in Scenario A -- works for the company for the duration of the vesting period in order to earn the option. This is the barter to which I referred. On the basis of economic equivalence .. and since both options have the same value .. the employee has effectively earned $X (on which he/she paid no taxes) and purchased the ESO for $X. The $X had to come from somewhere. Do you know where it came from? Ron

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (178332)	6/17/2004 1:03:14 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Option Expense Debate - Ad infintium The option expensing proposals have two problems. A. It is not an actual expense for the company. So it is only a "lost opportunity cost",ie the cost of selling the option on the open market. B. However the employee options are not exactly the same as the options traded on the exchange floor, since the company may not be public, and the employee vesting restrictions do not make the option a tradable commodity. The option value is going to be a theoretical value based upon the Black Sholls( sp? ) Formula. C. Judging the company cash flow calculation will get to be slightly more difficult, since the "mythical option expense" will have to be adjusted. D. Another adjustment may have to be made for unvested options when the employee terminates. In any case "expensing options" is not OK, if Intel is one of the first companies to begin expensing options, since the complications will make it confusing to compare Intel with other investments. However since a large number of companies have begun to expense options, and as uniform accounting standards for expensing options are being defined, the time has come to join the crowd. Otherwise an adamant stance by Intel gives the appearence of improper behavior by the Intel management. Otherwise Intel is known for its exemplary ethical behavior. So the endless option debate will hurt the Intel stock price, which is the most important issue for the shareholders and the management.