[Am-info] WasOptionsButIsntAnyMore

[John J. Urbaniak]

John Poltorak wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 11:16:39AM -0500, John J. Urbaniak wrote:
> > I just heard on CNBC that some analyst from Merrill Lynch, I think his
> > name is Milanovich or something like that, said that if options were
> > properly treated as expenses, then tech earnings would actually be down
> > about 60%.
> >
> > In Microsoft's case, if it's true that they paid no federal income taxes
> > for the last two years, then what I said before was also true.  They
> > made NO MONEY for the last two years.
>
> There is a big difference between having income and having *TAXABLE*
> income.

>
>
> This is why we have accountants who will maximise the former and minimise
> the latter.
>

I think you're giving the accountants way too much credit.  To be sure, there
are write-offs and shelters, but they're not as generous as you seem to
indicate.

For instance, you can't write off the retail price of donated software.  You
can only write off the media cost.

My point is still that Microsoft really didn't make a profit for the last two
years, if they paid no taxes.  They've been using smoke and mirrors to make
stockholders, "analysts" and the media *think* they made a profit, but they
didn't.

The "world's biggest, most valuable computer company" is barely holding on.

As with everything Microsoft does, it's just another scam.

John