I think you are thinking about employee stock purchase programs (discounted stock purchasing), which has nothing to do with the subject of expensing stock options.
Companies are required to report outstanding debt. Why should options be any different?
They aren't. Check any public company's 10K. They will show outstanding options.
The real question is, why bother to have companies make a pie in the sky estimate as to the value/cost of those options when they are granted, when, at the time of granting, they have no current cost or value, and may never?
If options aren't a form of compensation, what are they? If compensation isn't an expense, what is it?
Options, when granted, are not an expense. They don't cost anything and have no value. Only when they are exercised do they have value, and that may or may not happen. We should keep the status quo, where options are expensed only if and when they are exercised.
Expensing stock options as proposed is not a good idea. Despite what many suggest here, it will not produce a clearer picture.
If you expense stock options when granted, you have to make an estimate as to their value/cost and use that in the financial statement. The problem is that, when granted, stock options do not cost anything to the company and have no dollar value, and they may never. It is likely that in most cases, the estimated value when they are expensed will be revised when the options are exercised.
Right now, companies do one of two things when options are exercised: they either grant new shares, diluting the existing stock; or they buy back shares (or use shares already held back) equal to the amount exercised so as to not dilute the stock. Both methods have their merits, but the point is that it is only at the time of sale when the true cost of the option is known. So why change the way things are working? I suppose we could force all companies to buy back instead of dilute the share pool, but, I really don't see any case for expensing them when granted.
Options should only be expensed when they are exercised, which is exactly what happens today. Why do we need to change?
Thanks for giving a thought out response, most people here are not doing that.
A handgun has no purpose other than to kill human beings...
As a minor technical point, they have plenty of other purposes (hunting, target shooting, etc.), but there is no doubt that they are on the whole quite deadly. It all depends on how you put them to use. Are they used more for harm than good?
I could tell you that pulling a gun makes an aggressor many times more likely to fire that weapon for fear of their own safety
But you would be wrong and you don't have a shred of evidence to support that statement. For the most part, criminals are cowards and run screaming at the first sight of a gun in the hands of their would be victims.
...or that guns in the home are more likely to injure yourself or someone you love than prevent a crime.
You are also wrong about this one. I've read the one study that this is based on (by Dr. Kellermann) and both he and have been completely disgraced and discredited. It is so clear I have little doubt that you would not draw the same conclusion if you actually read the study.
The data on defensive gun use is very good. On of the major studies, done by Dr. Gary Kleck, found that firearms are used 2 to 2.5 million times annually by law abiding citizens to defend themselves from violent crime (note that only in a very small percentage are the guns actually fired). This study has been peer reviewed by some very, highly, anti-gun scholars, who were unable to refute it. One such scholar is Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, one of the top criminologists in the nation. On the Kleck study, he wrote:
[opening paragraph]
I am as strong a gun control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population, and maybe even from the police. I hate guns-ugly nasty instruments designed to kill people.
[from the body of the review]
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun is used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence.
[closing paragraph]
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I can not fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
Another study that I would like you (and everyone else reading) to examine is the Wright-Rossi study (titled, Under the Gun - Weapons, Crime and Violence in America). Some background is necessary. This federally-commissioned study was started by the Carter administration, in 1977, to justify a national gun control law, and to determine the best form of gun control. The two sociologists who performed the study, James Wright and Peter Rossi, we ardent gun control advocates (up until they did this study...) Guess what they found? They found that no gun control law in the US, either individually or collectively, ever controlled or reduced crime. Read the words of James Wright:
"Gun control, it has been said, is the acid test of liberalism. All good liberals favor stricter gun control.... The apparently desperate need to "do something" about the vast quantity of firearms and firearm abuse is, to the good liberal, obvious. At one time, it seemed evident to me, we needed to mount a campaign to resolve the crisis of handgun proliferation.... When I first began research on the topic of private firearms, in the mid-1970s, I shared this conventional and widely held view of the issue. Indeed, much of it struck me as self-evidently true.... That the best available evidence, critically considered, would eventually
"A well-regulated militia, is only the organized miltia, SCOTUS has said that that is the national/state guards."
You are just plain wrong about that. The Supreme Court has made no such statement, and in fact has ruled multiple times in direct contradiction to your statement:
October 1885 Presser V. Illinois 253
The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.
Either give a citation from the Supreme Court that supports your statement or stop making wild accusations.
I agree that SOME guns have a useful purpose. But a semi-automatic handgun does not.
Okay, I'll bite. According to you, what guns have useful purposes and why don't semi-auto handguns have a useful purpose?
Maybe you are not aware, but there is ample evidence and research to show that firearms are commonly used for self defense.
Right now, 36 US States will issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to any law abiding citizen (no good cause required). The experience from this has been extremely positive. There are perhaps a million plus permit holders now in the US and they turn out to be more law abiding and responsible than the average citizen.
Firearms provide a significant net positive benefit to society. You may disagree, but the evidence proves you wrong.
"The part I don't understand is where you think the people have the right to bare arms."
Multiple Supreme Court rulings affirm that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Here is one of the many cases from the Supreme Court that affirms this:
Presser V. Illinois 253
The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.
"I find it very difficult to understand, why americans insist on treating their constitution as a unchangeble edict from God."
We don't treat it as such? We have amended our constitution something like 27 times. Where have you been?
"It's a law like any other law. It was written in the 18th century, and it's unreasonable to expect it to be completely relevant for a modern society even with amendments."
I agree with you so far.
"I live in Denmark, where we got our first constitution in 1848. But it has been changed several times since then."
As I said above, we have changed ours many times too.
"Wouldn't it be a better use of time to discuss whether the american constitution need changing, than using all your energy trying to interpret what the founding fathers meant."
I basically agree with this too. I, and many others, believe that the Constitution should be interpreted with a view of original intent. The meaning should not be arbitrairly changed. If a certain portion is no longer relevant (I can think of several) then an amendment may be in order.
On the issue of the Second Amendment, the data clearly shows that firearms represent a net positive benefit to society so I see no reason to get rid of it.
"The amendment means the federal government cannot ban the private ownership of handguns because the states militia needs people who know how to use guns , a well regulated militia is the province of the states."
Wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled directly agaist your argument:
October 1885 Presser V. Illinois 253
The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.
"This Gun Control = Nazi reminds me of the old WWII propaganda"
While I certainly agree that the gun control/nazi thing is weak and in any case irrelevant, I also agree with the basic point that it is trying to make, which is that there are many examples in history of large populations of people being disarmed by their government only later to be brutlized, killed, etc. by the same government. To a certain extent, gun control enables that kind of thing.
"The government, like everyone else, is free to not patronize Symantec. Thus, I fail to see the problem."
The problem is that government of/by/for the people demands a bit of neutrality from public libraries. This issue is basically the same as a library that refused to stock political books against abortion or something like that.
"Since this is all theoretical, I'm going on the assumption that the Supreme Court would have had to rule that the Second Amendment requires the need of a militia to be valid."
You would be wrong. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled multiple times that the militia in the Second Amendment is basically everyone capable of bearing arms.
"Take a look at inner city ghettos some time. Indeed, many people have guns there, but those neighborhoods are neither more polite, nor is there less crime there."
While it is perhaps true that criminal gun ownership/use is higher in such places, it is also true that lawful gun ownership is lower. Think about it: if you pass many gun control laws and make it very difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns you will significantly reduce the rate of lawful gun ownership but you will not in any way reduce criminal gun ownership. With a higher proportion of armed criminals to unarmed law abiding citizens, the result is obvious and predictable.
"I believe places such as NYC should be free to ban guns in their jurisdiction, while rural areas like Minnesota - where guns are necessary - should be permitted have laws allowing guns."
Do you also think local governments should be able to decide to take away other rights? What if they decide to get rid of the right to privacy, because that right is a hinderance to law enforcement?
"For now, however, as long as people are paranoid about protecting themselves with firearms and prepared to shoot without thinking, I'd rather not have sites that promote gun ownership."
That is of course your choice, right or wrong. I say it is wrong. Who is prepared to shoot without thinking? There is tons of reasearch and evidence that law abiding US gun owners use their guns in lawful self defense a significant number of times per year. There is also ample evidence that shows that these same people commit far fewer crimes than average.
Why do you fear law abiding citizens with guns? It seems that you are the paranoid one.
From the ACLU web site: "We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government"
This shows that the ACLU is at the very least anti-second amendment.
You claim that the ACLU is not anti-gun? Show me some proof. Where have they ever said that they support gun ownership and use?
No it does not. The NRA fully supports laws against criminals owning guns, laws requiring background checks for gun purchases etc. Lawful means non-criminal gun ownership.
I do believe the thing about the Swiss and the reservists. I read that one of the topic pulic fears in Japan in gun crime. The rate is very low, but the media plays it up so much...
"Yeah, maximum violence MUST ge good, why else should they build bigger guns?"
While I welcome a debate on your other statement in that post, I will try to remain on topic...
High capacity, semi-automatic firearms have been available for over 100 years. Bigger guns have been around a long time. Guns and lawful gun ownership are not the problem.
"how about keeping guns legal show the corrsponding country sucks?"
Really? How about Switzerland? Gun ownership is near mandatory and they have very low crime rates.
On the other hand, how about Australia? They passed a near complete gun ban, and one year later homicides were up 3.2%, assaults were up 8.6%, and armed-robberies were up 44%.
"Are there any statistics showing how many homocides were committed with legally owned vs. illegally owned (or carried) guns?
Yes:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report "Firearms Use by Offenders," the overwhelming majority of firearms used in crimes come from either the perpetrator's friends and family or from illegal sources. The report is based on data collected from personal interviews with 18,000 prison inmates. Conducted by the Clinton-Reno Department of Justice (no friends of the Second Amendment), it is the largest study of its kind sponsored by the federal government.
Researchers found that inmates serving time in state prisons said they obtained their guns from the following sources:
Friends or family, 39.6 percent.
On the street/illegal source, 39.2 percent.
A retail store, 8.3 percent.
A pawnshop, 3.8 percent.
A flea market, 1.0 percent.
At a gun show, 0.7 percent.
"The (in the develloped world) unmached poliferation of guns has not made the USofA a safer place!"
Wrong. Gun ownership in Switzerland exceeds the US, and yet they have very low crime rates. States like Vermont, where any law abiding citizen can carry a gun without a permit have very low crime rates. Lawful gunownership is a net positive benefit to society.
Tell me again which is the safer society when it comes to gun deaths and gun crime in general?
The point is that you cannot make such simple comparisions. Switzerland has virtually mandatory firearm ownership, and yet very low crime.
The question is what to do about crime. There is no place in the world that you can point to which had high crime rates, enacted gun control and saw crime rates drop as a result. On the other hand, I can point to plenty of places that had high crime rates, removed some gun controls, and saw crime rates go down.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are thinking about employee stock purchase programs (discounted stock purchasing), which has nothing to do with the subject of expensing stock options.
They aren't. Check any public company's 10K. They will show outstanding options.
The real question is, why bother to have companies make a pie in the sky estimate as to the value/cost of those options when they are granted, when, at the time of granting, they have no current cost or value, and may never?
Options, when granted, are not an expense. They don't cost anything and have no value. Only when they are exercised do they have value, and that may or may not happen. We should keep the status quo, where options are expensed only if and when they are exercised.
If you expense stock options when granted, you have to make an estimate as to their value/cost and use that in the financial statement. The problem is that, when granted, stock options do not cost anything to the company and have no dollar value, and they may never. It is likely that in most cases, the estimated value when they are expensed will be revised when the options are exercised.
Right now, companies do one of two things when options are exercised: they either grant new shares, diluting the existing stock; or they buy back shares (or use shares already held back) equal to the amount exercised so as to not dilute the stock. Both methods have their merits, but the point is that it is only at the time of sale when the true cost of the option is known. So why change the way things are working? I suppose we could force all companies to buy back instead of dilute the share pool, but, I really don't see any case for expensing them when granted.
Options should only be expensed when they are exercised, which is exactly what happens today. Why do we need to change?
Thanks for giving a thought out response, most people here are not doing that.
A handgun has no purpose other than to kill human beings...
As a minor technical point, they have plenty of other purposes (hunting, target shooting, etc.), but there is no doubt that they are on the whole quite deadly. It all depends on how you put them to use. Are they used more for harm than good?
I could tell you that pulling a gun makes an aggressor many times more likely to fire that weapon for fear of their own safety
But you would be wrong and you don't have a shred of evidence to support that statement. For the most part, criminals are cowards and run screaming at the first sight of a gun in the hands of their would be victims.
You are also wrong about this one. I've read the one study that this is based on (by Dr. Kellermann) and both he and have been completely disgraced and discredited. It is so clear I have little doubt that you would not draw the same conclusion if you actually read the study.
The data on defensive gun use is very good. On of the major studies, done by Dr. Gary Kleck, found that firearms are used 2 to 2.5 million times annually by law abiding citizens to defend themselves from violent crime (note that only in a very small percentage are the guns actually fired). This study has been peer reviewed by some very, highly, anti-gun scholars, who were unable to refute it. One such scholar is Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, one of the top criminologists in the nation. On the Kleck study, he wrote:
[opening paragraph]
I am as strong a gun control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population, and maybe even from the police. I hate guns-ugly nasty instruments designed to kill people.
[from the body of the review]
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun is used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence.
[closing paragraph]
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I can not fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
Another study that I would like you (and everyone else reading) to examine is the Wright-Rossi study (titled, Under the Gun - Weapons, Crime and Violence in America). Some background is necessary. This federally-commissioned study was started by the Carter administration, in 1977, to justify a national gun control law, and to determine the best form of gun control. The two sociologists who performed the study, James Wright and Peter Rossi, we ardent gun control advocates (up until they did this study...) Guess what they found? They found that no gun control law in the US, either individually or collectively, ever controlled or reduced crime. Read the words of James Wright:
"Gun control, it has been said, is the acid test of liberalism. All good liberals favor stricter gun control. ... The apparently desperate need to "do something" about the vast quantity of firearms and firearm abuse is, to the good liberal, obvious. At one time, it seemed evident to me, we needed to mount a campaign to resolve the crisis of handgun proliferation. ... When I first began research on the topic of private firearms, in the mid-1970s, I shared this conventional and widely held view of the issue. Indeed, much of it struck me as self-evidently true. ... That the best available evidence, critically considered, would eventually
You are just plain wrong about that. The Supreme Court has made no such statement, and in fact has ruled multiple times in direct contradiction to your statement:
Either give a citation from the Supreme Court that supports your statement or stop making wild accusations.Maybe you are not aware, but there is ample evidence and research to show that firearms are commonly used for self defense.
Right now, 36 US States will issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to any law abiding citizen (no good cause required). The experience from this has been extremely positive. There are perhaps a million plus permit holders now in the US and they turn out to be more law abiding and responsible than the average citizen.
Firearms provide a significant net positive benefit to society. You may disagree, but the evidence proves you wrong.
Multiple Supreme Court rulings affirm that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Here is one of the many cases from the Supreme Court that affirms this:
We don't treat it as such? We have amended our constitution something like 27 times. Where have you been?
"It's a law like any other law. It was written in the 18th century, and it's unreasonable to expect it to be completely relevant for a modern society even with amendments."
I agree with you so far.
"I live in Denmark, where we got our first constitution in 1848. But it has been changed several times since then."
As I said above, we have changed ours many times too.
"Wouldn't it be a better use of time to discuss whether the american constitution need changing, than using all your energy trying to interpret what the founding fathers meant."
I basically agree with this too. I, and many others, believe that the Constitution should be interpreted with a view of original intent. The meaning should not be arbitrairly changed. If a certain portion is no longer relevant (I can think of several) then an amendment may be in order.
On the issue of the Second Amendment, the data clearly shows that firearms represent a net positive benefit to society so I see no reason to get rid of it.
Wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled directly agaist your argument:
October 1885 Presser V. Illinois 253
The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.
- After Columbine, they organized a rally in Denver."
Wrong. They set their annual meeting to take place in Denver, but they set the date BEFORE Columbine, not after.
"- After the shooting in Flint, Michigan, they organized a rally in Flint."
Got a citation for that? I know of no such rally.
"- It was founded the SAME YEAR that the Ku Klux Klan became an official terrorist organization."
So what? The NRA was founded in 1871. The great fire was also in 1871. What does one have to do with the other?
"This isn't a gun safety organization. These are people who want to kill."
Give me a break. The NRA consists of people of every color and political type. They are committed to gun safety and preserving the right to bear arms.
While I certainly agree that the gun control/nazi thing is weak and in any case irrelevant, I also agree with the basic point that it is trying to make, which is that there are many examples in history of large populations of people being disarmed by their government only later to be brutlized, killed, etc. by the same government. To a certain extent, gun control enables that kind of thing.
The problem is that government of/by/for the people demands a bit of neutrality from public libraries. This issue is basically the same as a library that refused to stock political books against abortion or something like that.
You would be wrong. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled multiple times that the militia in the Second Amendment is basically everyone capable of bearing arms.
While it is perhaps true that criminal gun ownership/use is higher in such places, it is also true that lawful gun ownership is lower. Think about it: if you pass many gun control laws and make it very difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns you will significantly reduce the rate of lawful gun ownership but you will not in any way reduce criminal gun ownership. With a higher proportion of armed criminals to unarmed law abiding citizens, the result is obvious and predictable.
Do you also think local governments should be able to decide to take away other rights? What if they decide to get rid of the right to privacy, because that right is a hinderance to law enforcement?
That is of course your choice, right or wrong. I say it is wrong. Who is prepared to shoot without thinking? There is tons of reasearch and evidence that law abiding US gun owners use their guns in lawful self defense a significant number of times per year. There is also ample evidence that shows that these same people commit far fewer crimes than average.
Why do you fear law abiding citizens with guns? It seems that you are the paranoid one.
From the ACLU web site: "We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government"
This shows that the ACLU is at the very least anti-second amendment.
You claim that the ACLU is not anti-gun? Show me some proof. Where have they ever said that they support gun ownership and use?
Wrong. According to the FBI UCR and the NSC, murders of passion with a gun account for about 27% and gun accidents are at about 9%.
"I'm also all for the same kind of licensing for firearms that we have for the only slightly-more-dangerous automobile."
The NRA supports mandatory background checks for firearm purchases.
No it does not. The NRA fully supports laws against criminals owning guns, laws requiring background checks for gun purchases etc. Lawful means non-criminal gun ownership.
I do believe the thing about the Swiss and the reservists. I read that one of the topic pulic fears in Japan in gun crime. The rate is very low, but the media plays it up so much...
While I welcome a debate on your other statement in that post, I will try to remain on topic...
High capacity, semi-automatic firearms have been available for over 100 years. Bigger guns have been around a long time. Guns and lawful gun ownership are not the problem.
Really? How about Switzerland? Gun ownership is near mandatory and they have very low crime rates.
On the other hand, how about Australia? They passed a near complete gun ban, and one year later homicides were up 3.2%, assaults were up 8.6%, and armed-robberies were up 44%.
Yes:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report "Firearms Use by Offenders," the overwhelming majority of firearms used in crimes come from either the perpetrator's friends and family or from illegal sources. The report is based on data collected from personal interviews with 18,000 prison inmates. Conducted by the Clinton-Reno Department of Justice (no friends of the Second Amendment), it is the largest study of its kind sponsored by the federal government.
Researchers found that inmates serving time in state prisons said they obtained their guns from the following sources:
Friends or family, 39.6 percent.
On the street/illegal source, 39.2 percent.
A retail store, 8.3 percent.
A pawnshop, 3.8 percent.
A flea market, 1.0 percent.
At a gun show, 0.7 percent.
"The (in the develloped world) unmached poliferation of guns has not made the USofA a safer place!"
Wrong. Gun ownership in Switzerland exceeds the US, and yet they have very low crime rates. States like Vermont, where any law abiding citizen can carry a gun without a permit have very low crime rates. Lawful gunownership is a net positive benefit to society.
The point is that you cannot make such simple comparisions. Switzerland has virtually mandatory firearm ownership, and yet very low crime.
The question is what to do about crime. There is no place in the world that you can point to which had high crime rates, enacted gun control and saw crime rates drop as a result. On the other hand, I can point to plenty of places that had high crime rates, removed some gun controls, and saw crime rates go down.
The second amendment is not about hunting.