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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Employee Stock Options - NQSOs & ISOs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (718)	12/15/2004 12:37:46 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 786

Don, You wrote: If a company issues and sells shares on the market and gives the cash proceeds to the employee, the cash IS an expense. OK. let's take that as agreed. What if it gives only some of the cash proceeds to the employee? Surely that amount of the cash proceeds given to the employee would be an expense. Same argument. And if it is the employee who is also standing in the market? Presto... compensation. Regardless of the order in which the cash changes hands. It doesn't matter if the employee unloads the share for $100 and gives the company $100 and the company gives $90 back, versis unloading the share for $100 and offsetting the amount owed to the company versus the amount received and giving the company $10 - keeping the $90. Or even pocketing the share and giving the company $10. And we know to account for all of those alternatives identically. The company gets $100 in value from the issue and sale of the share, and the company pays $90 in compensation to the employee. Despite how obvious it is to the vast majority of clear thinkers, this concept boggles the mind of folks who try to watch the cash. Just like that simple pea-under-walnut game suckers 'em in every time. Perhaps an easy-to-see comparison is helpful. When a company manufactures a widget that it could ordinarily sell for $1,000 and gives it instead to an employee in lieu of wages, and the employee sells or could sell that widget on the open market for $1,000, the company properly records a compensation expense of $1,000 and the employee properly records income of $1,000. If the employee is required to pay $100 for the widget then the compensation expense is $900. Does it matter if the company sees cash? Nope. Ever heard of an advertising agency paying its bills at least in part by doing advertising? Does it matter what it actually costs the company? Nope. The market determines the value the company is required to record as expense. If folks at Norton were compensated in part by free copies of Norton Antivirus, which can be manufactured for a marginal cost of zero, we would still know exactly how much wages the company is required to record. If the folks at Norton are compensated in part by free shares in Norton it's the same thing.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (718)	12/15/2004 2:16:26 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

Here's another case you forgot to mention. If a company gives a negotiable financial instrument to an employee as part of that employee's compensation, then the market value of that instrument, (net of any cost the employee must bear), IS compensation. If, for example, the financial instrument is a certified check, that's compensation. If the financial instrument is a share of some company, then the value of that share on the open market is compensation. If the financial instrument is an IOU, then the value of that IOU on the open market is compensation. Negotiable financial instruments are interchangeable. But not to record it? Because the assets of the company didn't change? What kind of dim witted reasoning leaps to that conclusion? Imagine a company which pays its employees 100% of revenue by allowing them to pocket everything before it goes into the till. What's the compensation expense? Zero? The sillies who say "But the assets of the company were not decreased in the process" seem to forget that they also weren't increased in the process either! It's not the decreasing that is (or isn't) the expense in this case, but the not-increasing. Just like the cash not going into the till is an expense. If the company had issued the share on the open market, then the treasury of the company would have increased by the market value of the share. By giving the share instead to the employee, the company avoids cash wages, at the expense of an ofsetting increase in treasury from the issuence of the share. Which IS a compensation expense.