Backdating options steve jobs Dirtiest free chat site

Seems to me what he really did with his options was probably legal - and incredibly dumb for a guy who was making Apple one of the all-time great business turnarounds and America's seventh-most admired company.

The great seer of tech trends had no idea what was coming - indeed, no idea how much his company, or he himself, was really worth.

In some cases, the date of exercise, rather than the date of grant, was changed to an earlier date to convert ordinary income into capital gains.

In general, companies engaging in a classic backdating transaction chose a date when the stock price was at a low point and chose that favorable date as the grant date.

Fifty-two companies currently under criminal investigation. Moreover, the company avoids having to expense the options as current compensation, thus increasing earnings in the near term.

As a consequence, the option is immediately profitable, or “in the money,” to the option holder.

Under previous regulations, corporations could wait 45 days or, in some cases, over a year to report options, thus providing ample time for backdating.

Other similar practices are being reviewed by government officials as well.

While the focus of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") centers on improper accounting practices and disclosures, thereby violating securities laws, a major yet little explored consequence to the scandal involves potentially onerous taxes on those who received these options.

If the stock increased to a share, the holder could exercise the option, pay /share to acquire the stock, then turn around and sell it for /share, earning

While the focus of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") centers on improper accounting practices and disclosures, thereby violating securities laws, a major yet little explored consequence to the scandal involves potentially onerous taxes on those who received these options.

If the stock increased to $11 a share, the holder could exercise the option, pay $10/share to acquire the stock, then turn around and sell it for $11/share, earning $1/share in profit ($1,000 in total).

If the stock dropped below $10/share, the stock would be "under water"; therefore, the option would not be exercised, since the stock price is lower than the cost of exercising the option.

Larger question for investors: If he didn't know, how could the rest of us? When Fortune ran a 2001 cover story (by yours truly) called "The Great CEO Pay Heist", we put Jobs on the cover because the previous year he had received a mammoth grant of stock options that we calculated was worth $872 million, making it the largest one-year pay package any CEO had ever received.

Jobs responded with a letter to the editor, which we published, saying we had made a "glaring error." Those options weren't worth anywhere near what we said.

||

While the focus of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") centers on improper accounting practices and disclosures, thereby violating securities laws, a major yet little explored consequence to the scandal involves potentially onerous taxes on those who received these options.If the stock increased to $11 a share, the holder could exercise the option, pay $10/share to acquire the stock, then turn around and sell it for $11/share, earning $1/share in profit ($1,000 in total).If the stock dropped below $10/share, the stock would be "under water"; therefore, the option would not be exercised, since the stock price is lower than the cost of exercising the option.Larger question for investors: If he didn't know, how could the rest of us? When Fortune ran a 2001 cover story (by yours truly) called "The Great CEO Pay Heist", we put Jobs on the cover because the previous year he had received a mammoth grant of stock options that we calculated was worth $872 million, making it the largest one-year pay package any CEO had ever received.Jobs responded with a letter to the editor, which we published, saying we had made a "glaring error." Those options weren't worth anywhere near what we said.

/share in profit (

While the focus of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") centers on improper accounting practices and disclosures, thereby violating securities laws, a major yet little explored consequence to the scandal involves potentially onerous taxes on those who received these options.

If the stock increased to $11 a share, the holder could exercise the option, pay $10/share to acquire the stock, then turn around and sell it for $11/share, earning $1/share in profit ($1,000 in total).

If the stock dropped below $10/share, the stock would be "under water"; therefore, the option would not be exercised, since the stock price is lower than the cost of exercising the option.

Larger question for investors: If he didn't know, how could the rest of us? When Fortune ran a 2001 cover story (by yours truly) called "The Great CEO Pay Heist", we put Jobs on the cover because the previous year he had received a mammoth grant of stock options that we calculated was worth $872 million, making it the largest one-year pay package any CEO had ever received.

Jobs responded with a letter to the editor, which we published, saying we had made a "glaring error." Those options weren't worth anywhere near what we said.

||

While the focus of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") centers on improper accounting practices and disclosures, thereby violating securities laws, a major yet little explored consequence to the scandal involves potentially onerous taxes on those who received these options.If the stock increased to $11 a share, the holder could exercise the option, pay $10/share to acquire the stock, then turn around and sell it for $11/share, earning $1/share in profit ($1,000 in total).If the stock dropped below $10/share, the stock would be "under water"; therefore, the option would not be exercised, since the stock price is lower than the cost of exercising the option.Larger question for investors: If he didn't know, how could the rest of us? When Fortune ran a 2001 cover story (by yours truly) called "The Great CEO Pay Heist", we put Jobs on the cover because the previous year he had received a mammoth grant of stock options that we calculated was worth $872 million, making it the largest one-year pay package any CEO had ever received.Jobs responded with a letter to the editor, which we published, saying we had made a "glaring error." Those options weren't worth anywhere near what we said.

,000 in total).

If the stock dropped below /share, the stock would be "under water"; therefore, the option would not be exercised, since the stock price is lower than the cost of exercising the option.

Larger question for investors: If he didn't know, how could the rest of us? When Fortune ran a 2001 cover story (by yours truly) called "The Great CEO Pay Heist", we put Jobs on the cover because the previous year he had received a mammoth grant of stock options that we calculated was worth 2 million, making it the largest one-year pay package any CEO had ever received.

Jobs responded with a letter to the editor, which we published, saying we had made a "glaring error." Those options weren't worth anywhere near what we said.

Leave a Reply