There is at least one site supporting stock options - http://savestockoptions.org -. I would like you to consider how this site is financed. The site is laughable (but mostly cryable) with its deception. The elimination of stock options and stock option expensing are really two separate things. Stock option expensing involves having the company pay for the options as they are given. This is actually fair, but an impossible task, unless the options are bought from private firms as you would buy an option on an exchange. This can easily be solved by putting 5-10 year options on exchanges. Then all the company would have to do is buy the options and expense them. AN EASIER METHOD TO EXPENSE OPTIONS WOULD BE THROUGH STOCK BUYBACKS AND REQUIRE THAT DILUTED SHARES OUTSTANDING DECREASE EACH QUARTER. Management and many employees don't want either, they want a license to steal. They want to take the shareholders money. They even quote out of context Warren Buffett, misleading the public that he is for options. They fail to take another quote of his: "If an option is not an expense then what is it?" I can answer his question it is pure fraud. They mention many employees made like $425,000 in stock options of these high-tech firms, enough to buy a house. They fail to mention, those same stocks dropped an average of 95 percent or $1 trillion during the correction. Who paid the $425,000, every stockholder that invested in a mutual fund, pension, or stock account, that directly bought the stock. And as I am finding out, these same stocks still are diluting their shares outstanding today with stock options, even though the prices are down 50-75 percent from their highs. Once one of these dogs gets on an index, they can steal forever as long as market cap goes up.
I looked at two of stocks of the CEOs mentioned on the site that praise options, giving their standard write-up on how great they are to stock performance, BOTH WERE HEDIOUS PERFORMERS! One was MAPX, this stock has increased shares outstanding every year from 11.9 million in 1994 to 23.0 million in 2004. The stock has had virtually no earnings, and most likely has paid zero income taxes. During this time revenues decreased from 172 million to 161 million. The question I want answered is, if options are supposedly out of the money, increasing only if the stock goes way up why did the shares outstanding increase each year if the price and earnings per share have been trending down for a decade? I also want to know if they lose $2 per share every year, how do they maintain no debt? The stock was at $30 in 1992 and in 2004 was priced at $10. How can these stocks CEO's be used as a references? Because our politicans are too lazy to check them!