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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (12145)	11/19/2004 10:30:21 AM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25522

RE: "Paid in Capital decreased by $150 Million." Isn't it true that employee options exercises increase paid in capital, while share buybacks decrease it? They said they spent $500M on buybacks. Does this mean that employees exercised $350M?

To: Kirk © who wrote (12145)	11/19/2004 10:33:20 AM
From: BWAC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

Yes but, they spent $500 Million on the buyback. Not $160 Million. The other $340 Million had to come from somewhere, the cash to do it had to come from somewhere or had to come at the detriment of a dividend or reinvestment into income producing assets for example. (Ie They had the cash to spend, you didn't get it, and it wasn't put back into growing the business.) Its about what they did with their available cash generated from earnings and what ever other means. Try reworking the statements as if no buyback occurred. BTW we are dancing around the same issue and conclusion. I think the old typed wording vs how its read, and going deeper than intended into the mechanism, plus some general assumptions made or not made are causing all the confusion.