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.
Strategies & Market Trends
Employee Stock Options - NQSOs & ISOs
An SI Board Since June 2002
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
786 22 0
Emcee:  rkral Type:  Moderated
Welcome! Do you want to discuss employee stock options to your hearts content? On a generic basis? With specific numbers for specific companies? Hopefully, this will become the place for you to be for those discussions.

Moving Here? If you are moving a discussion here, you must use "Post Message" (in this window) for the initial post. Please include a link to the post to which you are replying, e.g.: "To John Doe, in reply to Message 17579691

Getting John Doe's permission to reply here is recommended.

Topics: The theme is employee stock options, non-qualified (NQSOs), incentive (ISOs), and whatever else may be out there. Anything and everything related to this theme is on-topic.

When a post is off-topic, PLEASE be courteous to others and put an "OT" or "Off-topic" somewhere, preferably at the beginning of the very first line.

Religious and political posts are strongly discouraged. Discussions of these topics can become too emotional too quickly. An exception, of course, is a political post related to options, e.g., current Senate bill S.1940.

Opinions: Expression of opinions is encouraged. It is opinions that reveals our personalities, and lets us learn the personalities of others.

However, it is important to express our opinions respectfully. It is imperative to respect the opinions of others. The golden rule definitely applies here.

Fact versus Opinion: Assume people will take what you say as factual. If it is opinion, please be reasonably sure the reader will know it is. If in doubt, use a JMHO, IMHO, or IMO where appropriate.

Recommended Reading: Please PM me or post with recommendations.

*Learn a lot! Enjoy the thread! And have fun here!*

Why Moderated? It's a safety valve, as well as a choice a thread starter must make. Hopefully, I will never have to use its power.

However, I intend to assist SI in enforcing their terms of use (TOU). Especially, I will not tolerate obscenity or profanity, and particularly, when it is directed at another in a personal manner. I will also not likely tolerate a person's continual personal attacks, even if obscenity and profanity are not used.
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromPosted
786IGNORE THIS TEST -- How can expensing options increase stockholders' equity?rkral7/31/2006
785I used to think expensing options would leave stockholders' equity unchangedrkral7/31/2006
784Inquiry Into Stock Option Pricing Casts a Wide Net By ERIC DASH Published: JunMick Mørmøny6/19/2006
783Still Addicted to Options Gretchen Morgenson Published: June 18, 2006 THE liMick Mørmøny6/18/2006
782What the options saga means to investors <b>A prominent securities lawyer Mick Mørmøny5/26/2006
781Wall and Main: Options Expenses EBay and Others Want You to Look Past Options EMick Mørmøny10/28/2005
780U.S. Rejects Cisco Plan on Options By FLOYD NORRIS Published: September 10, 200Mick Mørmøny9/10/2005
779Don, re "<I>It was the SHAREHOLDERS, not the company itself, who sacrrkral8/15/2005
778Ron, <i>I would expense the stock on the date "given", with theDon Lloyd8/15/2005
777Don, re "<I>If the company [ ...] bought existing stock on the marketrkral8/15/2005
776Ron, <i>...That seems so ludicrous that I don't have a followup, not Don Lloyd8/12/2005
775Don, re "<I>I would expense all stock buybacks made to offset grant drkral8/12/2005
774Ron, <i>Not only would you *not* start expensing options ... at any pointDon Lloyd8/12/2005
773Don, re "<I>[ed: payment] is reflected in the lowered, but still incrrkral8/12/2005
772Ron, <i>So when stock ownership becomes reality ... because the stock vesDon Lloyd8/12/2005
771Don, re "<I>That dilution IS the method of payment.</I>" rkral8/11/2005
770<i>...And if that contingency ownership (partnership) should become realitDon Lloyd8/11/2005
769Don, re "<I>They are a grant of contingent partnership to the employerkral8/11/2005
768Ron, <i>...if stock grants and option grants aren't compensation for Don Lloyd8/11/2005
767Don, if stock grants and option grants aren't compensation for services rendrkral8/11/2005
766The expensing of stock options and of stock itself, are fundamentally the same qDon Lloyd8/11/2005
765R2O, re "<I>Which PUBLIC companies GIVE STOCK to employees?</I>rkral8/10/2005
764<i>And GAPP net income has a similar clear and practical metric: maximize R2O8/10/2005
763<i>If stock is granted (at $0) to an employee in exchange for services renR2O8/10/2005
762R2O, RE: <i>I guess I come back to taxable because selecting between alteGVTucker8/10/2005
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):