"i don't know about that..."
I've quoted the part of your post that makes some sense. The rest, as my old friend Justum would say, is drivel.
I've been doing a little research trying to understand how options are valued.
First, I have to admit my amazement that the media reports the full value of the stock at the time of the award as if it's income to the recipient. Given that at the time of award, the typical option is to buy the stock at the current market price (the strike price), it's practically worthless at the time of award! Clearly, the value comes from the expectation that the stock will increase in price before the option expires. I realize that has great potential value to the grantee, but how can anyone claim that it's equal to the current selling price of the stock?
I sort of understand the difficulty in determining the cost to the company. If one assumes the company could sell the option shares at market value at the time of award, they lose the use of that capital. Nevertheless, it seems logical to me that the cost to the company should simply be the delta between the strike price and the market price if and when the option is exercised.
It's pretty confusing to me - can you shed any more light?
"Who cares what you wrote, ChebMo?"
Awww, aren't you cute! You are proven wrong and you lash out just like a child.
Well, try not to get too discouraged, you're bound to get one right someday!
Just imagine how much they'll make if the truth comes out about GM, Toyota, Ford, FCA, Daimler, BMW, Nissan, Subaru, and Honda all having done the same thing.
"So, with a current ORCL price of $36.89, his 2015 options are worthless, but his 2014 options are currently worth $3.58 per share, or total of $7.2 million. According to the Proxy Statement, Mr. Ellison has many unexercised shares, so I doubt he has done any of his 2014 options."
What's the difference between his stock options and Performance Stock Units (PSU)? Are the PSU's free?
I have to admit, I always thought the compensation numbers the media reported were actual net compensation. If I understand you correctly, these numbers are ALWAYS bogus. Why would they report these numbers this way?
Oh, and the chart at the bottom of page 7 shows net receivables at 34.573 billion dollars and allowance for loan losses at .590 billion dollars. That works out to be 1.7%. That's less than 2%, isn't it?
I see that your reading comprehension is still subprime.
How about you look up the difference between what I wrote, "default" vs. what you wrote, "delinquent" and report back on your findings?
BTW, the 10-Q number you quote is actually 5.2%, not 5.4% - but let's not quibble over .2%. The 60 day delinquent number in the same chart is only 1.6% - and that's still not default.
So, what's worse than an idiot or a moron? Well, whatever term you like, it clearly applies to you.
I admit I'm still trying to figure out if you are actually this stupid or if you just like to act this stupid in your role as chief troll. On the outside chance that you really ARE this stupid, I'll try to explain this again.
When new GM emerged after the bankruptcy, they did not have a captive financing arm. All financing was done by outside companies. In order to remedy this, in 2010 they bought AmeriCredit - A SUBPRIME LENDER. After the purchase, the name was changed to GM Financial and GM announced their plans to have the new company begin making prime loans as well as dealer financing. In other words, to serve the role of the old GMAC. Five years later, the percentage of subprime loans has been reduced to 20% with a default rate of less than 2%.
According to Experian, 19.7% of ALL new car loans are subprime. This means that GM Financial is now in line with the rest of the market.
Not an issue for GM, according to a current article. Subprime loans are about 20% of their portfolio. Pretty impressive since GM Financial was the subprime lender AmeriCredit until GM bought the company in October 2010.
September sales exceed even the most optimistic forecast. Silverado/Sierra again outsells the F series. Average transaction price up $800 YOY while incentive costs are down 1%.
Unfortunately, Volt & ELR sales continue to disappoint. Oh, and there's no proof that GM hasn't cheated on emissions like VW has. Well, except for the complete lack of any evidence, of course.
Does that make the month a disaster?
I sure hope GM doesn't cancel the ELR. When nothing else is going wrong, it gives Webby something to complain about. It's a perfect bellwether for how the company is doing overall.
Since he/she knows that everybody has him/her on ignore, he/she has come up with another way to accomplish his/her mission to clog up the board with undeniably useless posts.
Will Yahoo take action? Maybe, but not likely.
Yet, despite the likelihood of all these costs, pretty much every other manufacturer has done exactly the same thing. Right, Webby?
"So you really won't be able to say I'm wrong with any authority, even if 10 years go by and not one additional smog cheat story come to light."
Wow! Impressive! With Webby logic, you are quite right.
Just as nobody can say gold & silver have been bad investments simply because they've both been horrific for 3+ years. After all, the world has yet to come to an end and you may still be proven right.
"And, you've killed a cockroach and declare there are no more. Webby has seen a cockroach. He knows there are more."
OK, I'll give you credit for picturesque, if wildly inaccurate, language.
Are you and Webby assuming that this VW fraud is the first "cockroach" of this type we've ever seen? If so, how have these roaches remained hidden for so long? And, if they have, how can you be so sure they are common?
If not, where are the similar blatant criminal actions, (cockroaches), of others?
The cockroach analogy simply doesn't work.
"You have no evidence either way.'
You want me to prove a negative? And you're an engineer? OK, here's my proof, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! It is incumbent on YOU to provide evidence of your accusation and you have NONE!
"Yet you are confident you know the true situation."
No, I'm not. What I DO know is there is no more evidence that GM, Ford, et. al., committed a similar fraud than there is of any other crime you might wish to accuse them of. Why not call them child molesters? Or ax murderers? You have just as much proof!
"NEWSFLASH: Neither of us does."
Glad to see you finally admit you have no basis whatsoever for your accusations.
"No need to "buzz the tower" yet."
Well, you're a much more patient man than me. As far as I'm concerned, that tower has been buzzed plenty. Time to start throwing behind the head.