Frankly, I don't know that much about financial statements -- I was just trying to cover The Obvious[tm]. It was my understanding, though, that options were not well stated in their current form, making it more difficult for an investor to tabulate their potential effect on a stock than it should be.
I think the real issue is this: Investors, potential and real, in Company A want to know what outstanding liens A has. Options are in effect a lien against the value of individual shares. The share price needs to reflect whether A pays all its employees $1 with 1,000,000 in options each per annum, whether A pays them all flat rates with no options, or A does something in between. The quick-n-dirty way to reflect this is to show the options as an expense which doesn't require changing how people evaluate the value of Company A and its stock. The "correct" way would probably be to list options as debt against the stock itself... something like:
Max Option Dilution per Share Q3: % 8.71
Max Option Dilution by EOY 2006: % 12.51
That way you warn investors of the dilution potential of the stock if all the employees decide to exercise their vested options at the same time within the next quarter and the next year. I see two problems with this: 1) accounting software will need to be changed and 2) talk about a scary thing to put in your prospectus! At least an expense can be nested in the details section.
Philip Coyle, a former chief weapons inspector in the Clinton-era (1994-2001), has an interesting perspective. Whatever his politics, his understanding of Q/A seems relatively straightforward.
Interestingly, I just read your website, and you claim to be a libertarian, however what you spout here is nowhere near what libertarians believe.
Of course it's near what libertarians believe. I just don't toe the Libertarian Party line or buy their arguments hook, line, and sinker.
I believe firmly in civil liberties, but I don't believe that extends to harming others' freedom. The true libertarian rejects all concentrations of non-democratic power because powerful individuals, families, and corporations act just like corrupt, despotic governments. These little fiefdoms must be controlled by the regulatory arm of the commonwealth to maintain democracy and liberty for everyone.
Otherwise, you end up like George Orwell's Animal Farm where some are more "equal" than others...
Yes, they were, as always. However, the nitty gritty gets done in committee, as usual, making the final vote seemingly nonpartisan because in the end everyone gets a non-objectionable-enough piece of the pork.
I didn't say it would be abolished. However, Bush *WILL* push through some things to let young people start to put their money into private accounts instead of SS.
As long as we all understand that this will not reduce the tax burden by one penny, but merely makes more profitable investments possible at higher risk.
I know very little about West Africans, same as you no doubt. However, I will assume it is very hard to make it in many African countries wracked with violence. I don't believe increasing taxes on the rich, and wasting their money in government bureacracy, really helps the worthy poorer among us.
Much, probably most of that bureaucracy is dedicated to helping the rich get richer, but on a level playing field and ensuring they supply certain minimums to the workers who helped them get rich. As history has shown time and time again, the aristocracy must be forced at gunpoint to invest in even the most basic needs of their employees.
Socialistic, you mean. I work hard and study long to make money for myself and my future generations. Taking an inheritance away from my family that I have earned (and already been taxed on many times, no doubt) is a slap in the face of individual freedom, on which this country was founded.
Your plan is age-old familial aristocracy which foments inefficiency, ignorance, abuse, and concentration of power among elites. Aristocracy is the opposite of equality and the enemy of everyone else's freedom. As you know, you have to spend money to make money, as the old adage goes. Well, to spend it, you've got to have it and not everyone has access to it, especially when concentrated in the hands of the few.
So to grease the market for everyone, the rich pay taxes to educate and keep healthy their future workers which not only levels the playing field, it provides for a smarter, more efficient workforce and inspires future business opportunities. Simpleton Libertarianism assumes that government is a giant vacuum that makes money disappear, though in reality, government is simply another wing of the market, albeit with its own specialized requirements and guns to enforce the rules.
In summary, social goals pursued through government are not by definition anti-business, inefficient, or shacklesome to liberty, but must be approached and experimented with on an individual basis to witness their effects. Eliminating inheritance is simply a means to the end of promoting business and common liberty at the expense of the "misfreedom" of funding aristocracy.
- Calculate your share of the National Deficit
Yes. Thank you, Congress. Thank you, pork-barrel spending.
Thank you GOP-run Congress, yes.
- Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get
Vs. paying even more to the government and still not getting any social security benefits. (I'd like to be able to put some of mine away in private funds, thank you, call me crazy.)
You're crazy if you think the GOP cares about this more than tongue-in-cheek. Look, the populace is getting OLD. Guess who runs the GOP? You guessed it: the elderly. Social Security is staying come hell or high water or the GOP will be out of office. Period.
Having said that, the first step in fixing it, either way, is eliminating Congressional pensions and making Congress eat their own dogfood. Bush is too chicken shit to demand that.
- Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income
Yes, please, "become rich." We know that is an easy thing that just magically happens to people. They don't work hard, educate themselves, nor rely on their skills to make this happen. They are just "lucky," and deserve to be taxed even heavier than they are already!
It is true that luck plays into it. Parental backgrounds, parental money, community and direct government support factor far more into "making it" than you suppose. Don't believe me? Remind me again how many west Africans are "making it"? (I'm borrowing from Bill Gates, Sr.'s book on why it's ethical to tax the rich more)
Personally, I think the estate tax should be 100% to make the system more meritocratic and less aristocratic. Furthermore, I agree with your flat/fair and/or sales tax proposal. It's the only way for people to see how damn expensive these ridiculous oil wars are.
I already voted and I voted for some Reps, some Dems, some Libs, and one independent so I think I have a relatively broad perspective.
My problems with the Iraq war:
Pissing off our allies by giving them a redacted version of the Iraqi weapons declaration. Don't we pay diplomats to be diplomatic???
Bush didn't wait for Blix to finish. Blix said "give me 6 more months". Six months. What's six months in what will obviously be a 5-10 year campaign? Of course, Bush told Blix to get out and went ahead anyway since they were relying on shoddy intel from Bush 1, Clinton, early Bush 2 and the Brits.
Instead of chiding the French (and to a lesser extent the Russians) for their lack of military support for liberty, the Bush administration should have publicly exposed their and our corporations' illegal deals with Iraq during the Oil for Food program. Perhaps the French and Germans might not be embarrassed enough to help, but there's absolutely no reason why we couldn't've had the Russians with us (combined with letting Blix finish).
Instead Bush's "go it alone" and "you're either with us or against us" attitude and rhetoric cost us more troops, civilians, dollars, and world support for the goal of liberty. It was completely and utterly stupid and while he's flip-flopped enough back the other way to try to get UN help in Iraq, I cannot reward his administration's shortsightedness with my support.
Relying too much on the warlords in Afghanistan -- because we needed troops in Iraq -- has cost us precious time in getting democracy and necessities on the ground. Six extra months on the ground could've helped us find bin Laden and ensure Afghans got the support they needed.
Also,
You're a stupid redneck if you think "hating Bush" is equal to "hating America".
Nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear power are two different things. We promised to give North Korea 2 light water reactors for nuclear power cause you can't make PU from it. In return, they promised to cease development of nuclear weapons (not nuclear power). With Clinton and Bush foot-dragging on building the reactors and then Bush dishonoring North Korea by breaking off talks with them to "reevaluate policy" we managed to piss off NK enough to get them to restart their nuclear weapons program. Pretty damn smart diplomacy, eh? Can you remind me again why the rest of the world hates Bush even though not all of his policies are bad? The concepts of fairness, honor, and mutual respect just don't occur to him or any of his lackeys.
By your logic, the president has robbed the entire country of adequate representation while on the campaign trail. The way out, for your logic, is to argue that the Senate rules are outdated.
If he actually thinks there is something more important than the work in the senate, I'd like to know what that is.
As both the article and another poster wrote, it's called "running for President". You really should try taking off the pink elephant glasses once in awhile...
Being at work, I'm easily distracted. The point is that the Know Nothings feared and distrusted outsiders (immigrants). This is akin to some Republicans' attitudes that the U.S. is above international critique and investigation, de natura. That was why I put the (*) in there. But anyway, good job trolling, you totally through me off my original point.
Slashdot Mirror
The continental plates are floating on magma, not oceans.
-l
So, not all socialism is bad. Clever -- I like it.
Cheers,
-l
Frankly, I don't know that much about financial statements -- I was just trying to cover The Obvious[tm]. It was my understanding, though, that options were not well stated in their current form, making it more difficult for an investor to tabulate their potential effect on a stock than it should be.
-l
Company A
Avg Share Price @ EOD 2004/11/15: $ 21.45
Avg Share Price @ EOD 2004/12/15: $ 23.45
Option Dilution per Share Nov-Dec: % 1.21
Estimated using 2004/12/15 price
Max Option Dilution per Share Q3: % 8.71
Max Option Dilution by EOY 2006: % 12.51
That way you warn investors of the dilution potential of the stock if all the employees decide to exercise their vested options at the same time within the next quarter and the next year. I see two problems with this: 1) accounting software will need to be changed and 2) talk about a scary thing to put in your prospectus! At least an expense can be nested in the details section.
What do you think?
Cheers and IANAA,
-l
Cheers,
-l
...it's already got the script. I just had to change the start from S99 to S19.
-l
Except that they'll be unhealthy from malnuitrition due to not being able to feed themselves properly when the Social Security checks stop rolling in.
-l
The solution to this problem and every problem is: Install Linux.
-l
-l
-l
-l
W3 is considering making XUL standard.
-l
Sure, and you can do strings in C using arrays. What's your point?
-l
Interestingly, I just read your website, and you claim to be a libertarian, however what you spout here is nowhere near what libertarians believe.
Of course it's near what libertarians believe. I just don't toe the Libertarian Party line or buy their arguments hook, line, and sinker.
I believe firmly in civil liberties, but I don't believe that extends to harming others' freedom. The true libertarian rejects all concentrations of non-democratic power because powerful individuals, families, and corporations act just like corrupt, despotic governments. These little fiefdoms must be controlled by the regulatory arm of the commonwealth to maintain democracy and liberty for everyone.
Otherwise, you end up like George Orwell's Animal Farm where some are more "equal" than others...
-l
Yes, they were, as always. However, the nitty gritty gets done in committee, as usual, making the final vote seemingly nonpartisan because in the end everyone gets a non-objectionable-enough piece of the pork.
I didn't say it would be abolished. However, Bush *WILL* push through some things to let young people start to put their money into private accounts instead of SS.
As long as we all understand that this will not reduce the tax burden by one penny, but merely makes more profitable investments possible at higher risk.
I know very little about West Africans, same as you no doubt. However, I will assume it is very hard to make it in many African countries wracked with violence. I don't believe increasing taxes on the rich, and wasting their money in government bureacracy, really helps the worthy poorer among us.
Much, probably most of that bureaucracy is dedicated to helping the rich get richer, but on a level playing field and ensuring they supply certain minimums to the workers who helped them get rich. As history has shown time and time again, the aristocracy must be forced at gunpoint to invest in even the most basic needs of their employees.
Socialistic, you mean. I work hard and study long to make money for myself and my future generations. Taking an inheritance away from my family that I have earned (and already been taxed on many times, no doubt) is a slap in the face of individual freedom, on which this country was founded.
Your plan is age-old familial aristocracy which foments inefficiency, ignorance, abuse, and concentration of power among elites. Aristocracy is the opposite of equality and the enemy of everyone else's freedom. As you know, you have to spend money to make money, as the old adage goes. Well, to spend it, you've got to have it and not everyone has access to it, especially when concentrated in the hands of the few.
So to grease the market for everyone, the rich pay taxes to educate and keep healthy their future workers which not only levels the playing field, it provides for a smarter, more efficient workforce and inspires future business opportunities. Simpleton Libertarianism assumes that government is a giant vacuum that makes money disappear, though in reality, government is simply another wing of the market, albeit with its own specialized requirements and guns to enforce the rules.
In summary, social goals pursued through government are not by definition anti-business, inefficient, or shacklesome to liberty, but must be approached and experimented with on an individual basis to witness their effects. Eliminating inheritance is simply a means to the end of promoting business and common liberty at the expense of the "misfreedom" of funding aristocracy.
-l
Yes. Thank you, Congress. Thank you, pork-barrel spending.
Thank you GOP-run Congress, yes.
- Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get
Vs. paying even more to the government and still not getting any social security benefits. (I'd like to be able to put some of mine away in private funds, thank you, call me crazy.)
You're crazy if you think the GOP cares about this more than tongue-in-cheek. Look, the populace is getting OLD. Guess who runs the GOP? You guessed it: the elderly. Social Security is staying come hell or high water or the GOP will be out of office. Period.
Having said that, the first step in fixing it, either way, is eliminating Congressional pensions and making Congress eat their own dogfood. Bush is too chicken shit to demand that.
- Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income
Yes, please, "become rich." We know that is an easy thing that just magically happens to people. They don't work hard, educate themselves, nor rely on their skills to make this happen. They are just "lucky," and deserve to be taxed even heavier than they are already!
It is true that luck plays into it. Parental backgrounds, parental money, community and direct government support factor far more into "making it" than you suppose. Don't believe me? Remind me again how many west Africans are "making it"? (I'm borrowing from Bill Gates, Sr.'s book on why it's ethical to tax the rich more)
Personally, I think the estate tax should be 100% to make the system more meritocratic and less aristocratic. Furthermore, I agree with your flat/fair and/or sales tax proposal. It's the only way for people to see how damn expensive these ridiculous oil wars are.
-l
Instead Bush's "go it alone" and "you're either with us or against us" attitude and rhetoric cost us more troops, civilians, dollars, and world support for the goal of liberty. It was completely and utterly stupid and while he's flip-flopped enough back the other way to try to get UN help in Iraq, I cannot reward his administration's shortsightedness with my support.
Also,
-l
By your logic, the president has robbed the entire country of adequate representation while on the campaign trail. The way out, for your logic, is to argue that the Senate rules are outdated.
-l
Oh, it must've been Elizabeth when I saw "Dole" in the roll call. Fine.
Maybe Bush should retire since he's running for President. Oh wait, he can telecommute. The Senate doesn't allow that.
-l
As both the article and another poster wrote, it's called "running for President". You really should try taking off the pink elephant glasses once in awhile...
-l
Being at work, I'm easily distracted. The point is that the Know Nothings feared and distrusted outsiders (immigrants). This is akin to some Republicans' attitudes that the U.S. is above international critique and investigation, de natura. That was why I put the (*) in there. But anyway, good job trolling, you totally through me off my original point.
-l