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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MCHVE who wrote (71544)	9/4/2015 10:12:02 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Leveraging the company could make the options more valuable by increasing the theoretical maximum move on the underlying stock. If things go very well, each share could be worth a lot more, and that possibility makes an option on the stock worth more. It increases the chance of a big downside as well but the downside is limited to the option going to zero. Still the most reliable way to improve the value of the option is to have the stock move up. Also even if the option goes up without the underlying stock going up, it would be at best a stretch to call that looting. It would be even more of a stretch to call the stock buyback looting. It doesn't take from anyone it just divides the company in fewer pieces. With the extra debt the company isn't worth quite as much, but existing stockholders hold a larger share of a smaller pie. Granting too many options might be seen as looting, as might an aggressive option reprising scheme when the company does poorly after very large stock grants justified by tying compensation to corporate performance. I wouldn't call those things looting, but I wouldn't object so much as I would to call buybacks "looting". <That wasn't the context of this conversation.> Yes it is... No it wasn't. Again now one here has called welfare recipients looters here in over a year. It wasn't esp. common even more than a year ago. Yes this conversation started in response to your link to a piece by Stockman about "looters", but it didn't call welfare recipients looters, nor did it defend against such a charge, it didn't mention welfare recipients at all.