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 : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: OrionX who wrote (55759)	8/11/2006 9:58:44 PM
From: KeepItSimple	Respond to of 213176

Just think, if FASB hadnt changed the rules starting Jan 1st of this year regarding expensing options against earnings, none of this options backdating scandal would ever have happened. Because the old rules allowed you to ignore all charges and taxes and treat it like the options didnt exist. That's the real reason everyone in the valley was fighting against the FASB rule change- they knew there were tons of skeletons in the closet that would be exposed.

To: OrionX who wrote (55759)	8/11/2006 10:01:07 PM
From: aaplfan	Respond to of 213176

"Disclosure" Fine, let's be specific. How many companies amongst those in some sort of supposed options violation have disclosed such backdating facts? I don't think they would be scrambling now if they had. I agree with this statement and that's exactly where we are now. Only, we're also hearing about some fraud mixed in with a few of these companies (which has always been illegal and is confusing the issue.) My guess is that most of the companies involved (I believe it's over 1000) 'took the grey' as they always do and at the time felt that they had disclosed the grants and in doing so were covered. So here we are, big friggin' mess. But with it coming to light that more and more companies did it, and auditors signing off along the way, I think a case can be made by many companies that the standards of disclosure weren't clear at the time. If backdating is/was so prevalent and accepted as legal, it sure wasn't made obvious to the general shareholders otherwise why would we be having this discussion? I think this discussion is happening today because it a remaining area of legacy option granting practices that still hasn't been fully spelled out and cleaned up. For many years, companies legally treated options as if they were free. With expensing, things have changed dramatically. This is all good for shareholders... until companies find the next grey area to play in.

To: OrionX who wrote (55759)	8/11/2006 11:31:03 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

>>As for backdating methods, all the shares I ever got from the companies (US based) I worked for were shares priced the day they were vested. If backdating is/was so prevalent and accepted as legal, it sure wasn't made obvious to the general shareholders otherwise why would we be having this discussion?<< Orion - Priced the day they were vested? Interesting. I received options from a company I worked for in the 90s, and they were priced at the closing price of the day of the grant. I was under the impression that was the common practice. The idea is to motivate employees to enhance share value, so having the shares being worthless when they vested (since on that day you'd be able to sell, but for no gain) wouldn't work. - Allen