Slashdot Mirror

A good amount of management salary is based on performence/ percentage of profits and stock options

That has been blatently untrue for years as boards practice "repricing" and back-dating of these ostensible stock options http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/1007/perspectives/p6.htm

Those practices of making stock options into can't-lose forms of compensation haved moved them squarely out of the category of "pay for performance".

No CEO should get cash compensation. They should be paid exclusively in stock options. Why? Because they will only make any money if they make the company a success and the stock price goes up. If the stock price goes down, their options are worthless unless and until the price recovers.

At which point the Board promptly "re-prices" the options. Lets see what CPAs have to say about that:"Repricings effectively reward executives for corporate difficulties, rather than hold them accountable."

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/1007/perspectives/p6.htm

I misspoke, not anticipating some silly nit-picker to come along and ignore the fucking obvious fact that a law which doubles the annual cost of operating a US corporation, is bad for business.

The truth is, the IPO-in-America trend has plummeted since Sarbanes-Oxley went into effect. And this happened long before 2008 - and long before 2006, the year in which the credit/housing bubble was at its zenith.

Clear enough for ya?

This would also create jobs (at least in the short term) indirectly, as those who get the high-paying jobs directly related to this "stimulus" will demand additional production and services to fill their personal needs, which will create other jobs, and so on. In this way, each dollar invested in this infrastructure will actually be spent multiple times.

Ronald Regan called from 1980, and wants his trickle-down economics policy back. This is a bullshit lie, and I'll give you two examples of why.

First off, people in high-paying jobs have a lower marginal propensity to consume. It sounds absurd, but the single parent with a $40k job is spending almost their entire paycheck back into the economy just to survive. Someone who makes $120k is not spending 100% of their paycheck- not even close. They're putting a fair amount into long and short term savings. On a related note, gas and food price jumps really hammer the $40k person more than the $120k person; percentage-of-income-wise, the $40k person spends much more on food and gas than the 120k person does.

Second: money spent these days very, very quickly leaves your local, state, and national economy. Spend $5 on a burger at national franchise, and a teeny bit of that goes to employing the people in the store. Some of it goes towards the materials for the product, which were made as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Most of it goes to a trademark holding company aka tax shelter in the Cayman Islands as "trademark license fee". The article I mentioned lists Limited Brands, Toys "R" Us, ConAgra Foods, Home Depot, Kmart, Gap, Sherwin-Williams, Circuit City, Stanley Works, Staples, and Burger King as examples. I'm sure there are hundreds more.

Even locally, money spent largely doesn't go to the business owner if they don't own their own property. It goes largely to the landlord of the property. Commercial property owners aren't in the lower income brackets; they're in the top income brackets, and they're writing off their Mercedes as a business expense.

Back in the 50's, corporations shared tax responsibilities evenly with the American individual. Now, A HREF="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b45142.html">corporations pay about 7% and 60% didn't pay a dime. Meanwhile, their tax rate compared to the GDP is around 1.8%, down from the 1950's level of 5%. Meanwhile, you lose about 33% of your paycheck to state and federal taxes, then get taxed on the gas you put in your car and the stuff you buy.

Erm, you don't need to pay taxes to all the states -- only to yours.

Currently the retailer does need to pay sales taxes to any state where they have a physical presence, or "nexus."

Use tax is at your own state's rate.

Use tax is paid at the rate of the purchaser's home state.

The only tax laws you need to know are those for your location, since that's where an internet sale is considered to be taking place.

If you have a "nexus" in the customer's state, you pay the rate in the customer's state.

Erm, you don't need to pay taxes to all the states -- only to yours.

Currently the retailer does need to pay sales taxes to any state where they have a physical presence, or "nexus."

Use tax is at your own state's rate.

Use tax is paid at the rate of the purchaser's home state.

The only tax laws you need to know are those for your location, since that's where an internet sale is considered to be taking place.

If you have a "nexus" in the customer's state, you pay the rate in the customer's state.

It doesn't matter how they feel. New York State can't tax a purchase made in Texas

They can and they do. Moreover, this is not new. Nor is it unique to New York.

"Then they put them in the dumpster."

Isn't this illegal in most places? This is an old article ... maybe you can find more details regarding your state ...

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/704/essentials/p70.htm/

As for my company, we use a regional organization for disposal of computer and electronic equipment:

http://www.turtlewings.com/

Advertising doesn't really enter into it. Usually corporate accounting policy of how various elements of a product are priced (which are called "Vendor Specific Objective Evidence" or VSOE) will dictate this sort of thing long in advance.

Here is an article about the complexities of this, if you're interested...

As background: I'm a forensic accountant, do large financial investigations of public companies, and am currently doing a stock option investigation. I do not have any inside knowledge of the issues at Apple.

In fact, it isn't at all possible that the SEC could require Jobs to resign from Apple.

Not true at all. The SEC has fairly broad powers to permanently ban a person from serving as director or officer of a public registrant.

Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act. See: http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/0303/featur es/f031803.htm

I'm free to take questions!

It's amazing what gets 'blamed' on Sarbanes-Oxley. And most of the time, completely off base. While there is surely some money-grubbing from Apple, this is probably nothing more than Apple making a conservative decision to apply existing accounting policy more stringently. The previous poster here gets it right.

I am a forensic accountant - I do large corporate financial investigations, which involve accounting analysis and numerous interviews of management.

And I can't tell you how many times I've heard people in companies, when asked about $FOO, say "we had to do this because of SOX". Most of the time, they couldn't tell you what SOX is, or why that is the cause of $FOO.

SOX has turned into the Boogeyman, the shadow lurking in the background of any financial discussion. Unknown reason? SOX made us!

At its simplest, SOX requires that companies document what they do and how they do it. "404" is just a requirement that companies have a complete set of working documents describing accounting processes and the controls around those processes, and that they have actually tested to see that the processes and controls work properly.

Along with 404, SOX also heightened the burden on the financial accounting groups. Now CEOs and CFOs sign statements in quaterly and annual SEC filings, under penalties of civil and criminal law, that certify that they are "responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls", including upward reporting from subordinates and subsidiaries, and that the controls have been tested and reported on in the filing.

As a result, corporate accounting departments have tightened up, More documentation of different types of accounting processes mean that existing, latent accounting issues are being surfaced and addressed. More conservative usually, in the sense that one does not 'push the envelope' of GAAP.

This is not really 'SOX made us do it', but rather as result of the analysis that SOX calls for. Sematics, but an important difference, I think.

Accounting Background - What is at work here?

SOP 97-2 "Revenue Recognition for Software Products with Multiple Deliverables".

SEC and AICPA: Revenue generally is realized or realizable and earned when all of the following criteria are met:
- Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists
- Delivery has occured or services have been rendered
- The seller's price to the buyer is fixed or determinable, and
- Collectibility is reasonably assured

So, Apple decided that at the time of the sale of the computer with 802.11n (but not yet functional), with no additional amounts due from the customer, that since Apple had not perfected delivery of the complete laptop with 802.11n, they had not finalized all terms of the delivery, and thus had not "earned" all of the revenue from that sale. This would cause them to 'defer' some portion of the revenue (a liability on the balance sheet) until the final piece of the sale (802.11n) was delivered to the customer.

Under Apple's current policy, the computer is sold without 802.11n, delivery of this total package is complete when the customer receives the laptop, and Apple recognizes that entire sale as current revenue. Then a new $4.99 sales happens when the customer purchases the upgrade.

See: NY Society of CPA's discussion of SOP 97-2.

Now, there are certainly valid objections to the scope and scale of 404, but those are fairly focused on the size of companies that SOX should apply to, and how much testing the auditor should demand that they and the company do around 404.

For tax problems, you need WTX

From what I read here: (got the link from mozillazine)
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2001/1200/dept/D ept.1202pg.57.htm

It seems like the creation of the corporation is so that they can do things more "officially." So instead of the way companies like IBM participate in certain OSS effort, (that is, give some money and provide some developers and then get some not so tengible assets, such as "influence" of the development direction), a company like Google can say... consult me on the browser source code and I will give you this much money... or put in this feature in firefox and I will give you this much money... (and this is perfectly fine right? as long as they keep the product open source...)

Now I have no problem with this move in and of itself since this is not the first time OSS is used this way. It's perfectly fine, even if someone just uses the Mozilla code and build a viral-type marketing vehicle out of it. (and let's face it folks, there are more sophisticated marketing method than pop-up ads...Netscape being a commercial brand of Mozilla also have pop-up blocker... and You don't think this can happen? Who's going to stop? Moz Corp don't even have public shareholder to answer to.) However, was this a long term strategic move of some people within MoFo? Is this why there was a need to put all the supports behind Firefox and stop development on Seamonkey when there's clearly an audience for it? Is that what it takes for firefox and the like to be commercially viable (by having more resource for faster time-to-market)?

Again... if someone comes along and did this all by themselves without using Mozilla Foundation's resources and its legitimacy I wouldn't really care. But this really feels like a hijacking for me. May be having all after tax profit going back to MoFo will make me feel better.

KPMG knows a thing or two or threeabout numbers not quite adding up.

"Upon clarification by counsel that he was arguing (at least primarily) that the imposition of collection responsibilities would unduly interfer with interstate commerce, Justice O'Connor confirmed that the issue is whether the tests established by Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady 430 U.S. 274, (1977) permit the state to impose this duty. Complete Auto held that a state may impose a tax upon interstate commerce activities if the following requirements are satisfied: 1. The activity has substantial nexus to the state; 2. The tax is fairly apportioned; 3. The tax does not discriminate against interstate commerce; and 4. The tax is fairly related to the services provided by the state."

COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC. v. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274 (1977)

You may not like or agree with that interpretation, of course, but that's the Law of the Land today...
-l

You cite Herb Greenberg as a source as if he was a reliable source!

Herb is nothing more than a mouthpiece for various short selling hedge funds. He typically knows nothing about the companies he writes about, but follows the scripts provided by his hedge fund masters.

Look at this link which was created when Herb worked for his previous employer, TheStreet.com:

http://www.webspawner.com/users/rockerswine/

Note the connections mentioned in the above article between TheStreet.com and various hedge funds.

One or more of these hedge funds are probably short one or both NetFlix and Tivo, which means they have sold them short, which means they expect their stock prices to fall. It should be emphasized that short sellers make money only if the prices of stocks sold short fall.

Articles like this are intended to help the stock price collapse along. Herb is either a willing co-conspirator or a hapless dupe, nothing more! The overall goal is stock market manipulation!!!

It may well be that there are faults with the business plans of either NetFlix or Tivo or both, but this is not what Herb is about. Herb will trash any company, even if its business plan is flawless and it is growing spectacularly. All it takes is a call from his hedge fund "buddies"!

The moral is, take any words out of the mouth of Herb with a giant grain of salt!

P.S.

More background on some of the hedge funds that may be involved here:

http://www.nysscpa.org/home/2003/0103/4week/articl e19.htm

The charge is for "the impairment of goodwill and intangibles." This is a specific accounting situation covering the decline in value of an intangible asset such as a corporate brand, see the Financial Accounting Standards Board statement 142 or the March 2002 CPA Journal.

Kumar's resignation may help the company reach a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which began a formal probe into the company's accounting in May 2002. Chief Financial Officer Ira Zar said "high-level'' executives were involved in hiding revenue drops when he pleaded guilty to securities fraud earlier this month.

However, the expenses of the stock plan were never booked. When all this came out, the stock price dropped 31% the next day.

See: Graef Crystal's 4/21/04 column on Bloomberg

I would argue that this is like putting your trash out on the curb. There is no expectation of privacy See This. When something is posted to the InterWeb it becomes part of the public domain, and even if you copyright it, yes those words and images and layout still belong to you, as does your trash sitting on your properity, but there is no legal recourse preventing someone from looking at it, taking photos of it or even taking it home.

Here's an interesting article on property and privacy rights of garbage by the New York State Society of CPAs:

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/old/16458948.htm

I find it rather laughable that Jack Valenti says "...because making movies is so expensive, only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition." The problem I have is that Hollywood is notorious for cooking the books... take for instance the concept of "Net Profit". Take a look at here for a page that shows how Hollywood calculates "net profit" so that a movie like Coming to America can show no profit.

Don't stop at those two pages... look here or here or here... or if you don't mind reading a PDF file, try here

Uh, scuze me but most (if not all) states put the burden of paying sales tax on sellers, not buyers, and whether they are liable for a tax bill depends on the extent to which they do business in a given state.

If you purchase taxable merchandise from an out-of-state mail order business and no New Jersey sales tax is collected, you owe 6% use tax on the purchase price of the goods. Use tax is due within twenty days after the merchandise is delivered into New Jersey. Shipping charges separately listed on the bill are exempt from tax. NJ

Q. How are out-of-state purchases/sales taxed?
A. In Pennsylvania, the responsibility to pay Sales Tax is ultimately placed on the consumer. When a resident purchases a taxable item outside of Pennsylvania and does not pay Sales Tax at the time of purchase, the tax is then due to Pennsylvania in the form of Use Tax at the same 6 percent rate. The Use Tax is due and payable when the item is brought to or received in Pennsylvania, and it is up to the purchaser to remit the tax to the Department. Out of state sales are not subject to Pennsylvania Sales Tax when the item is shipped directly to an out of state location. PA Tax

(B) From Other States -- When Sales Tax Does Not Apply. Sales tax does not apply when the order is sent by the purchaser directly to the retailer at a point outside this state, or to an agent of the retailer in this state, and the property is shipped to the purchaser, pursuant to the contract of sale, from a point outside this state directly to the purchaser in this state, or to the retailer's agent in this state for delivery to the purchaser in this state, provided there is no participation whatever in the transaction by any local branch, office, outlet or other place of business of the retailer or by any agent of the retailer having any connection with such branch, office, outlet, or place of business. CA Tax [Note: in this case there is no tax]

Are sales over the Internet taxable? Sales made over the Internet are subject to the same sales tax application as mail order sales. If the seller is required to be registered to collect Maine Sales Tax, then the seller should collect the tax on the sale. If the seller is not required to be registered, then the seller is not required to collect tax on the sale. The purchaser, however, would still owe a Maine Use Tax, payable directly to Maine Revenue Services, based on the sale price of the goods. Most Maine taxpayers report this use tax liability on their Maine 1040. Maine Tax