RSS
Twitter
House Passes Bill Saying No To Stock Option Expensing
from the no-big-deal dept
As expected, the House today passed the bill saying FASB can't force companies to expense options, instead saying they should follow the plan suggested two years ago by Craig Barrett, that only top execs have their options expensed. The bill still has to make it through the Senate (and the President, of course), which may be difficult. This still seems like a lot of talk over nothing. It doesn't involve any cash movement, just the shifting around of numbers on a piece of paper -- and the most important part of those numbers is already known. Anyone who really needs to know this information already knows it. The only thing this might change is the perception of some people who haven't been paying attention concerning the profitability of a company.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
It Just Might Pass
It might have a better shot in the senate than you think. The the two biggest libs in that body are from California and would vote for this proposal since even the most wacked-out granola eaters in silicon valley are against expensing options. If FASB is left as-is - even though it is just "paper shuffling" - most companies would simply stop giving options to the rank and file to make their reported numbers look good. If that happened, the left-wing techies in NoCal couldn't afford to be liberals any more.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It Just Might Pass
Except... no. Techies are so used to receiving stock options that they'll continue to demand them. And, don't discount the power of the stock option in luring top employees. Even if companies wanted to stop offering options in an attempt to make their numbers look better, the competitive nature of jobs in the Valley would make it all but impossible.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It Just Might Pass
the competitive nature of jobs in the Valley
What Jobs ????????(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment