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: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (69467)	9/30/2007 10:39:23 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 213182

you are just buying the hype on this issue (options backdating). I have received backdated options as have most of the techworkers who read this thread. If you work in tech, chances are you received them too. You got them when you went to work in the middle of a quarter and were granted options at the low of the quarter. Thats it, the big scandal. In the recent backdated options trial, the guy was convicted on 10 counts of fraud for options he did not grant to himself, only to employees. When the sentencing came around, the government assigned about 12 million loss. 2 million was the amount of loss on THE DAY the options restatement was announced to the stock, 7 million was the amount the company had to pay to the SEC to deal with the matter, and *3 million was the amount of TAXES the employees didn't pay to the government for their options. So there you have it. the 2+7 million was actually caused* by the SEC case. Then 3 million for taxes you and me should have paid. The juries are full of people like you. Its like you are shouting "burn the witches" and your last name is broomhilda. What I wonder is if ESPPs are now also fraudulent and need to be expensed. ESPPs have the exact same characteristics as employee options plans, giving them the low of the beginning or end of quarter. The government in the recent trial deliberately called options backdating criminal.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (69467)	9/30/2007 6:23:05 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 213182

Wyatt - Personal remarks such as that are not acceptable on this thread. If you disagree with someone's opinion, say so and say why. There is no need to express negative opinions about people's intelligence. This is an official warning. I would hate to see you stop posting here, whether by choice or not, so please accept this post as constructive criticism. - Allen PS: [edit] I just read your next post, where you said you were going elsewhere. Best of luck to you. If you do decide to come back and post here, let me point out that in my view "rational discussion" does not include disparaging others for being "religious" or intellectually inferior simply because they disagree with you.