WiFi would only be good as an addition to wired capabilities, not as a substitute. One of my friends attempted to hook up his PS2 to the network using wireless, and had issues with variable signal strength and latency. We had played a few games online before he relocated his router and hard-wired the PS2 (switching the desktop to wireless). Game play was much improved.
With all the competitive players online, you don't want your network connection to be another relative disadvantage.
winmail.dat files are generated by outlook.
Sometimes attachments are also encoded in a winmail.dat file, which makes it really difficult for someone in an office running Lotus Notes to read.
More about it here:
http://www.gpc.edu/~jbenson/resource/winmail.htm
I used WMDecode from http://www.biblet.com/ to decode some attachments my coworker received from someone outside the firm in a winmail.dat file.
Financial analysis is definitely not as simple as many people would like it to be. I just love the arguments some companies gave against mandated option expensing. Some think it will depress their stock price.
Now if everyone had full information on that company's real earnings and how that translates to the prorated share of the company their stock represents, then disclosing/expensing these options formally should have ZERO impact on the stock price.
Ironically, the only rational reason to believe your company's stock price would fall if you expensed options is because you think the market as a whole also thinks options issuance doesn't cost the company anything. By providing an expense line in your financials for options (yeah, it's really more complex than just one number), those that really do believe that options are free can add this figure back to earnings.
EBITDAO is what's important, they'll claim. Haha...
Those that discourage transparency have something to hide...
I didn't mention shorting stock. By issuing an ISO, the company is short a call option on their stock to the employee. The strike is equal to the current price of the stock at issuance of the ISO (could be set at a different price). The only time the employee would exercise their right to buy at this price is if the stock price on expiration is above their strike. If this should happen, the company receives K (strike) and issues stock to the employee. But, on that particular day, the company could theoretically issue the same stock on the open market and receive the current market value of the stock (above K). This difference is what the employee gains (and the company loses out on). There is no magical creation of wealth here; economic value is transferred from the company (foregone amount of current stock price less K) to the employee (call option holder).
If a company were to realistically expense these ISOs, they would see an expense on issuance of the ISO in the amount of the equivalent premium any market participant would pay to have the same call option on the stock. The mark-to-market of the option subsequent to the issuance would hit the books as additional expense or income, depending on the change in option value. On expiration, the value of this option is the max of 0 and the difference between the current price and K. So the cumulative expense of the option to the company will finally be equal to this option expiration value when the option expires.
This is all different from ESPP (employee stock purchase plans), which I will not get into at the present time. In a typical ESPP, the company is again implicitly short call options on their stock, albeit at much lower quantities than with ISOs.
Bottom line, investors need to know the value of these options issued, and the potential dilution effect. This information should be provided upfront and not embedded in tiny footnotes in a company's financials.
If you wanted options on X shares of stock at K strike price that expire in T years, I would sell you those options for some premium P. What's the value of P? It's the amount that should make me indifferent from selling you this option or not. Read up on Black-Scholes for option pricing formulas that basically use information on the current stock price, K, T, the risk free rate of return, and the volatility of the stock to determine the expected payout of the option.
Now after I sell you these options, they can change in value due to many things, such as stock price movement, changes in the financial outlook of the company, etc. The fact that I am now short call options to you means that I have a contingent liability to you on expiration to deliver X shares in exchange for the agreed upon stock price. I have potentially unlimited downside on this side of the transaction, if the stock price should skyrocket. But theoretically, I am on average compensated for this risk by the premium you paid to me to get these options.
Flip now to me being a company. You want options, and I give them to you, without charging you the premium. Had I gone and sold these out on the marketplace, I would have taken in P. This is not being expensed. If I want to unwind this position in the future, so as to remove the contingent liability, I'd have to pay P2 in the marketplace.
Whether or not you expense options, if you issue them at all, you are forgoing P. And in both cases, you have a contingent liability. Being short call options is potentially costly.
Can any company be short options on anyone else's stock in their investment portfolio and not have that liability noted on their books? I think not.
How big is your password?
It's not the size that matters, it's the strength.
Just wait til we see the next wave of spam on how to get bigger stronger passwords.
Slashdot Mirror
Bart: Isn't that just the wrong way?
Homer: Yeah, but faster!
With all the competitive players online, you don't want your network connection to be another relative disadvantage.
More about it here: http://www.gpc.edu/~jbenson/resource/winmail.htm
I used WMDecode from http://www.biblet.com/ to decode some attachments my coworker received from someone outside the firm in a winmail.dat file.
Oh, and don't bother calling 911 any more...here's the _real_ number. [Carl hands Homer a card with "912"]
"Shh! Shut up!"
$60/365 = ~16 cents/day
Would you pay 16 cents / day more (i.e. give up the 5% discount) so you could get to your destination a little faster?
Is Windows Part 15 compliant?
Now if everyone had full information on that company's real earnings and how that translates to the prorated share of the company their stock represents, then disclosing/expensing these options formally should have ZERO impact on the stock price.
Ironically, the only rational reason to believe your company's stock price would fall if you expensed options is because you think the market as a whole also thinks options issuance doesn't cost the company anything. By providing an expense line in your financials for options (yeah, it's really more complex than just one number), those that really do believe that options are free can add this figure back to earnings.
EBITDAO is what's important, they'll claim. Haha...
Those that discourage transparency have something to hide...
If a company were to realistically expense these ISOs, they would see an expense on issuance of the ISO in the amount of the equivalent premium any market participant would pay to have the same call option on the stock. The mark-to-market of the option subsequent to the issuance would hit the books as additional expense or income, depending on the change in option value. On expiration, the value of this option is the max of 0 and the difference between the current price and K. So the cumulative expense of the option to the company will finally be equal to this option expiration value when the option expires.
This is all different from ESPP (employee stock purchase plans), which I will not get into at the present time. In a typical ESPP, the company is again implicitly short call options on their stock, albeit at much lower quantities than with ISOs.
Bottom line, investors need to know the value of these options issued, and the potential dilution effect. This information should be provided upfront and not embedded in tiny footnotes in a company's financials.
Now after I sell you these options, they can change in value due to many things, such as stock price movement, changes in the financial outlook of the company, etc. The fact that I am now short call options to you means that I have a contingent liability to you on expiration to deliver X shares in exchange for the agreed upon stock price. I have potentially unlimited downside on this side of the transaction, if the stock price should skyrocket. But theoretically, I am on average compensated for this risk by the premium you paid to me to get these options.
Flip now to me being a company. You want options, and I give them to you, without charging you the premium. Had I gone and sold these out on the marketplace, I would have taken in P. This is not being expensed. If I want to unwind this position in the future, so as to remove the contingent liability, I'd have to pay P2 in the marketplace.
Whether or not you expense options, if you issue them at all, you are forgoing P. And in both cases, you have a contingent liability. Being short call options is potentially costly.
Can any company be short options on anyone else's stock in their investment portfolio and not have that liability noted on their books? I think not.
How big is your password? It's not the size that matters, it's the strength. Just wait til we see the next wave of spam on how to get bigger stronger passwords.