Technology Stocks | Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Alomex who wrote (160006)3/11/2004 11:30:09 AM
From: 10K a day   of 161295
 
i think the RE party is over...I look in the paper and there r 48 homes for rent in Natomas...(New area in Sacramento)....And there are 3-4 story rental highrise (everywhere) halfway built....They asking like 1600 bucks to rent a high rise box....I'm like......oh my....

i dunno'....show me a migrant farm worker who wants to pay 1600 a mo rent....or buy a used high performance sports car for 400 a mo......I think i rather have the sports car....

:)

i think amazon is like a high performance sports car...You don't wanna buy it...You just wanna' rent it. :P

...and seriously....how else you gonna' get the young sexy chicks....lol...(maybe i take a 5 minute ride down to the capitol...and say high to AAAAAHHHNOLD.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: 10K a day who wrote (160007)3/11/2004 11:45:38 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor   of 161295
 
thats the rental market though... we crashed here a year ago in rentals and its the worst rental crash I've ever seen. But what about homes to buy where you are, are they falling?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (160008)3/11/2004 12:03:17 PM
From: 10K a day   of 161295
 
okay. Where is 'here'?

i'm trying to figure out why i wanna buy ....for 1500 a mo (2-3 K per year taxes)....tie myself down...

Or rent a box for 1100 and drive a nice new sports car...and get chicks. lol :P

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: 10K a day who wrote (160009)3/11/2004 12:04:07 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor   of 161295
 
bay area, you are CA too right? I thought you were in oakland somewhere.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (160010)3/11/2004 12:06:01 PM
From: 10K a day   of 161295
 
eeew...bay area is outa sight :)....I think pretty soon everybody move from all other states to ....CAAAWWWWLIFAAAAWNYAAAH.... or where it's warm. :)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (160010)3/11/2004 12:15:03 PM
From: 10K a day   of 161295
 
you know....it blows my mind....California do a 15 billion dollar bond....and GE does like a 50 billion dollar bond..(Bankrupt WorldCom do a 8 or 50 billion bond for chrisssake)....FREAKIN' GWB pay a billion dollars a day to find saddam dude *LITERALLY* hiding in a hole with a cell phone)....and California can't even pay 28 bucks for a medi cal patient to have a physical therapy treatment...**WITHOUT 15 LAYERS OF BEAUROCRACY***...i mean seriously....I can't even buy a freakin' hamburger for 28 bucks...and freakin AAAAAHNUUUULD has like 5 HUMMMERS.....!!!


Okay...thank u...I'm better now. :)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (160000)3/30/2004 5:35:29 PM
From: GST   of 161295
 
Tougher Accounting Rule Expected for Stock Options
Tue Mar 30, 7:55 AM ET Add Top Stories - Los Angeles Times

By Thomas S. Mulligan, Kathy M. Kristof and Terril Yue Jones Times Staff Writers

NEW YORK — In a ruling that could change the way many Americans are paid, the nation's top accounting authority is expected to decree as early as today that companies must treat employee stock options as business expenses when they are issued.

story.news.yahoo.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: GST who wrote (160013)3/30/2004 9:56:32 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor   of 161295
 
now that engineering has been sent offshore I don't care about options expensing anymore, I think options should be expensed.

The tech lobby is calling for this other plan that expenses top executives options and not anybody elses. That would be ok too since top executives are where the problem is.

The legislation, written by Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-La.), would require firms to expense stock options for their top five executives only. The bill, endorsed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) (D-Calif.), also would create a new method of figuring an option's cost that some critics believe would produce a misleadingly low value.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (160014)3/30/2004 11:29:36 PM
From: SI Dave   of 161295
 
Options grants are a capital event and have nothing to do with profit and loss, except at the EPS level since they represent a dilution factor. Expensing them creates a cure that could arguably be considered worse than the disease.

The fluctuating value of the options depends on their intrinsic value at any point in time relative to their vesting and expiration dates (time value), their strike price relative to the current market price of the underlying shares (intrinsic value), and volatility. The companies will take expense each time the value of the options rise (which they would if PPS rises), and take negative expense (income) each time the option value drops (which would happen of the PPS drops). Those events affect earnings, which in turn affects PPS, which in turn affects the periodic mark to market adjustment. It's a vicious circle, similar in nature to a circular argument, and just begs to be manipulated.

IMO, it's a bad idea embraced to silence critics and allow the abusive excessive options grants to executives to continue. That's is the real problem... the wholesale shifting of leveraged equity (and/or earnings) away from shareholders and over to management. The real cure is to eliminate them in favor of outright grants of shares. That way, the value of the grant is known immediately instead of being masked as a number of options with a potentially understated value, the leverage is eliminated, the dilution is significantly reduced, and insiders would be easily recognized when they try to loot and plunder the rest of the shareholders.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: SI Dave who wrote (160015)3/31/2004 1:14:39 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor   of 161295
 
share grants sound reasonable to me. I agree about the expensing issue, I never wanted expensing because options are not cash expenses, and that black sholes approach was just crazy in my view. But I stopped caring because at this point, with the massive wage deflation I see around me for engineering (the mid level jobs), it is important to get these executive salaries under control and however it is achieved I am for it.

We have cases where shareholders are voting for options expensing and other alternative compensation packages, as was the case with HP recently and the BOD is ignoring the shareholders and continuing to dole out the pay and perks. The system is a mess at the top.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.