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 : Wind River going up, up, up! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pirah Naman who wrote (3365)	6/29/1998 11:29:00 PM
From: voop	Respond to of 10309

To all: Janus Mutual Funds holdings for WIND as of 4/30/98 Mercury Fund 372K shares Overseas Fund 250K shares Olympus Fund 372K shares Growth and Income 610K (I know, no dividend) shares Equity Income 44K Ibid shares Balanced Fund 116K shares Interesting how it seems to be viewed as appropriate for "conservative investments", i.e. the latter three listed. Any others know of specific institutional holdings? David L Schneider

To: Pirah Naman who wrote (3365)	6/30/1998 2:09:00 AM
From: Richard Karpel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10309

Pirah, I would like to hear management's response to the FAS 123 issue, and would appreciate it if you were to contact them on our behalf. The question is simply: Why does the company feel it needs to support a stock option program that appears to be more generous than other similarly situated companies? (Although I know nothing about ESOPs, I trust that your views on this issue -- as well as Michael Greene's -- are accurate.) While you're at it, you may want to ask why management felt the need to adopt a "poison pill" plan, which was supposed to be put to a vote at the recent shareholders' meeting. (Peter Church -- was the plan approved?) It's been about three weeks since I read the materials that were sent prior to the meeting, so I don't recall the details of the plan, but I do remember being irritated when I read about it. Taken together, these two issues are beginning to create an impression in my mind of a management more concerned about its own interests than its shareholders'. As someone who probably has too large a percentage of his money invested in this company, I hope my impression is mistaken. In any case, I'd like to hear what Mr. Abelmann or Mr. Fiddler has to say.

To: Pirah Naman who wrote (3365)	6/30/1998 10:11:00 PM
From: Michael Greene	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10309

Summary of FAS 123 The Financial Accounting Standards Board summary of FAS 123 can be found at rutgers.edu Under the fair value based method, compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the value of the award and is recognized over the service period, which is usually the vesting period. The fair value of an option estimated at the grant date is not subsequently adjusted for changes in the price of the underlying stock or its volatility, the life of the option, dividends on the stock, or the risk-free interest rate. The pro forma amounts required to be disclosed by an employer ... will reflect the difference between compensation cost, if any, included in net income and the related cost measured by the fair value based method defined in this Statement, including tax effects, if any, that would have been recognized in the income statement if the fair value based method had been used.