The differences can be dramatic: NETSCAPE'S <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(Nasdaq: NSCP )") else Response.Write("(Nasdaq: NSCP )") end if %> earnings
would have been reduced by 296% in 1996. Other firms have reported more modest
adjustments. MCI <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(Nasdaq: MCIC)") else Response.Write("(Nasdaq: MCIC)") end if %> would have seen earnings hit by 8.1%,
PEPSI CO. <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(NYSE: PEP)") else Response.Write("(NYSE: PEP)") end if %> by 6.9%, AMGEN <% if gsSubBrand = "aolsnapshot" then Response.Write("(Nasdaq: AMGN)") else Response.Write("(Nasdaq: AMGN)") end if %> by 6.6%.
Fortune recently cited a study by Sanford C. Bernstein analysts Michael L.
Goldstein and Jonathan Freedman estimating that corporate profits throughout
the 1990s have appeared 5% above the levels that would have been reported
had the options accounting recommended by FASB been employed.
Defenders of the traditional options accounting have argued its virtues as
a kind of industrial policy. Back in 1992, Microsoft CFO Michael W. Brown
told Congress that stock-option grants "enable startup companies to create
new jobs by attracting employees willing to take a risk for future capital
gains" and "enable existing companies to reinvent themselves by adding
entrepreneurial employees in the face of rapid change." Moreover, Stephen
Wise, CFO of Legato Systems Inc., recently told The Wall Street Journal,
"The whole concept of stock options is really geared from the point of U.S.
tax strategy to supporting smaller companies. In my opinion, it's a business
development incentive of sorts."
Part 4: A Senator Speaks Out
(c) Copyright 1997, The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. This
material is for personal use only. Republication and redissemination, including
posting to news groups, is expressly prohibited without the prior written
consent of The Motley Fool. |