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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (7028)	11/4/1997 7:53:00 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 18056

How's about Real dividends = Stated Dividends - Share Dilution - Employee stock option change. Example, TXN for 1996 vs 1995: ti.com ti.com Number of shares decreased that year. Shares Dec 31, 1995: 193.6M Shares Dec 31, 1996: 192.1M Change: -.77% We should also take into account the change in the value (at current stock price) of unexercised employee stock options. The actual stock price doesn't matter, provided the bulk of the options are in the money. So use stock price of $114: Dec 31, 1995: 7.88M at $29.24 plus 1.13M at $56.13 = worth $733M Dec 31, 1996: 9.91M at $33.91 plus 1.20M at $57.31 = worth $862M So change in option value was $128M, or $0.66 per share. So I get total real dividends of: Apparent dividend yield: 0.64% Decrease in number of shares: +0.77% Increase in ESO value: -0.66% ------ Real dividend yield: 0.75% -- Carl

To: Bearded One who wrote (7028)	11/4/1997 9:02:00 PM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18056

Beard, Jeez I started this as sort of a joke on one of my media and stock tout pet peeves in explaining the incredible shrinking dividend. -g- "Perhaps rather than looking at how much we get as a return on our investment in their stock (excluding appreciation),we should look at how much the company pays out per share per quarter" That is a darn good suggestion - but now you are back to square one that the new age revisionists are trying to wiggle out of, namely, plain old fashion dividend yield. Yield is in the crapper, *period*, and you can't justify stock values based on it, so the hucksters only hope to keep the good times rolling is capital appreciation. In other words the 'ole tulip blub mania that you can allways sell it to someone else. Intelligent folks like Zeev sort of think this business is OK relying on the logical extension of the theoretical increase in per share accounting earnings will eventually translate into cash in the stockholders' pockets. But if it ain't by cash dividends, your only hope is selling the underlying security. And this is where the disconnect occurs. The benefits of share buybacks are being eaten alive by various shenaigans like option plans. God help us if the markets ever turned down for awhile. Your question on my FASB comment is basically on the right track. There is no recognition by the company of the expense of offering the option packages. The FASB program was to recognize some cost, since there is clearly a great benefit to the employees. But, I guess there are totally free lunches. -g- A final thought. How much would you pay for Softy if you could never sell the shares, just put them away in your portfolio until they plant you 6 foot under? Regards, Dan

To: Bearded One who wrote (7028)	11/4/1997 10:14:00 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Respond to of 18056

<<I know there was some talk about forcing companies to account for options granted using Black-Scholes, was that what you were talking about when you mentioned the FASD backing down?>> . You can actually see this in effect in some annual reports this year. The footnotes typically will show a 'Pro Forma' EPS, This apparently reduces the fully diluted EPS by adding an expense due to a B-S valuation of the options granted. Since the period over which the option grants are included does not reach back as far as it will in the future, the current effects may be understated. Regards, Don