I've been too busy rehabbing the damage the fire did to the ranch over the last few weeks to stay up with this board, but even though I was seeing more and more messages by the "shorts", I have to say I was surprised to see the number of them increase as well as the volume. This sure looks like the mirror image of when the Nasdaq was going from 4,000 to 5,000 as far as the little guy thinking he finally has things figured out. While there are problems in the market and issues with some resolving to be done, that has been an ongoing process for a hundred years. What also never changes is the little guy joining the party just in time to beginning to believe they are smarter than everyone else, get really sucked into that thinking by some small victories, and then the market takes away what it wants from them. Shorting seems to be the tool of the day that the little guy thinks will make him rich now. My guess is that over the next few months or year, this board will get very quiet again, and those who remain will be ones who don't seem to have the nasty attitude.
I tend to think the basing kind of shorting poster is the same "going to the moon" guy of two years ago. They never learn.
The only way to prevent these fat cats from overcompensating themselves is to make it mandatory to buyback the number of shares from the market to cover the number of stock option granted to the employees. This way it will not subject the balance sheet to wild fluctuation. At the same time it is also a deterant to those fat cats if they want to beautiful balance sheet.
<It seemed clear enough to me. I've read articles on both sides of the issue; both sides make good points. I happen to think the present system on options is OK, but don't think the world would end if a rational way of expensing them at the point where they are granted is adopted (not 5-10 years later, when accounting via the assumption of full dilution is the most appropriate treatment, as presently done). If a company is going to lie, they're going to lie, and if a company is going to be truthful, then they're going to be truthful, no matter what GAAP rules are.>
Now it is much better. I agree with you 100% except for "the present system on options is OK." Why are the TECH CEOs afraid even of publicly debating how to reasonably and fairly expense stock options? Do you think they will participate in such public debates, if any? I do not think so. By the way, I do not have much interest in being a successful investor. I have decent amount of money in money market to retire in 10 to 15 years. I have much more interests in fairness and justice of our financial and political systems.
It seemed clear enough to me. I've read articles on both sides of the issue; both sides make good points. I happen to think the present system on options is OK, but don't think the world would end if a rational way of expensing them at the point where they are granted is adopted (not 5-10 years later, when accounting via the assumption of full dilution is the most appropriate treatment, as presently done). If a company is going to lie, they're going to lie, and if a company is going to be truthful, then they're going to be truthful, no matter what GAAP rules are.
I have noticed the same thing. It is unfortunate that most Yahoo message boards are now all about stocks, as opposed to informed discussion about the companies and their fundamentals. In the old days, there were people who talked about Rituxan, how it worked, opportunities for broadening the market, etc. Now it is mainly up, down, up, down, yadda yadda yadda. Traders talking trashing and trading noise. Some of the traders are really smart, and know a lot about markets. But I don't like to see people offering investment advice to others whose individual needs they haven't a clue. You ought to buy, you better sell, IDPH is going to 25, IDPH is going to 90. Stuff and nonsense. The market is as the market does, and no one can reliably predict short term stock prices in either direction. But what aggravates me even more is the garbage that the news services call news now. Reuters runs nonsense from Pierre Belec, CBS Marketwatch carries Thom Calandra, and there are a whole host of other shills for shorts who are every bit as thick-skulled as the new economy guys were three years ago. And some of these are the same guys; no one persecutes like the newly converted.
All nonsense aside, IDEC does nothing but improve their business and grow their earnings. This is why I continue to be a stockholder. Not because I think the stock goes to the moon next week, or next month, or even next year. Because it's a good company that I feel good about being a stakeholder in, and because I think the stock is reasonably valued at present levels (not so cheap it can't go down; not so high it can't go up).
Corrchess, I agree completely. We have certainly had a "dumbing down" of the American investor in the last few years. It certainly makes it interesting to be investing in a market that is more and more a casino. However, it can present some very interesting opportunities for those that understand business and know when a deal has a clear margin of safety built in. Buffett has been cleaning up lately, although he has yet to do the elephant deal that he has the horsepower to do.
I really don't care how the options issue is handled as long as an investor can see easily and clearly the effects those options will have on the shares he owns, both short term and long term. That game and the salaries and benifits managements now seem to think they deserve is a serious one. Add to that some large companies Defined benifit retirement plans, and it is "investor beware" or at least pay a LOT of attention. I think the market has been and will continue to dole out punishment to those companies who want to play games at the expense of shareholders much faster and more effectivly than any agency, come to think of it, that is pretty much what has been going on for a couple of years now.
Let me ask you one important question. Suppose that you are not long nor short on any stock. Do you think that companies like INTC, which spent 80% of their 2001 income to finance their $0.9 Billion stock options (this is a FACT), should expense their stock options so that we can clearly see their real profit or NOT? If they have problems on how to accurately or reasonably expense stock options, I have many suggestions for them. One of them is to have public debates among accountants, CFOs, investors including Mr. Buffett, and public officials such as Mr. Pitt and Mr. Greenspan. But those tech CEOs say that they will not expense options simply because there is no way to accurately do it. Do you buy it? Let me know.