This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to find a lawyer orporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate games for imac xecutives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

Or is it Oprahtastic? supply chain manufacturing hichever it is (and maybe it's both), the Charm School reunion is unlike any of the other reunion shows of the whole Flavor of Love gravy train. Of course, there are still some of the constants we've come to expect from the reunions: the transformations, the crowd favorites, the confrontations, the host. We've got to quit meeting like this, LaLa. Continue reading "1-11: It's Springerrific!" »

Last August, a D.C. federal appellate panel ruled that the IRS cannot collect taxes on money awarded as compensation for emotional distress and other intangible injuries. In the original ruling, Marritta Murphy was awarded damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation after she blew the whistle in 1994 on environmental hazards at a New York Air National Guard base. The three-member D.C. appellate panel said Murphy should get a tax refund of $20,665, plus interest, on her $70,000 judgment from the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board because it was "compensation for the loss of a personal attribute," not income. Under that interpretation, the compensation was similar to awards for physical injuries, which are tax exempt. The ruling also raised the wider issue of the constitutionality of a tax code provision that permits taxation of damage awards for injuries such as those in Murphy's case. And it set off widespread debate and judicial second-guessing, as recounted in this blog post . Now that same group of jurists has reversed itself, saying that Murphy's money is taxable. Specifically, the panel found that Murphy's compensatory award was not for personal citibank login hysical injuries, and therefore is not tax-free. The panel also determined the award was part of her gross income. "Murphy no doubt suffered from certain physical manifestations of emotional distress,'' wrote Douglas Ginsburg, the appeals court's chief judge.

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder mobile home loans alue by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator onkyo dvcp702 oes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

Earlier today, I wrote : I read something Neil Gaiman wrote a couple of days ago about writers. He said that anyone can start, but real writers actually finish. By that metric, I'm currently not a real writer. I misread the source, and used the wrong word there. It's actually "professional writer" and not "real writer." There's a huge difference between "not real" panama nd "not professional." Anyone who is passionate and creative can be a "real" writer, whether they are "professional" or not. By my own metric, I'm not meeting my personal creative expectations right now, and that paragraph in my post was more about how I have all these zombie creations all over the place that have been started and abandoned, not because I don't want to bring them fully to life, but because Real Life seems be getting in the way of my creative passion right now, leaving me without a lot of energy at the end of the day to climb into my mad scientist's writing lair and unleash some creative monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Thats why I wrote: When I was a kid, when I was asked "what would you ask for, if you could have anything you want?" I used to reply, "X-ray vision" or "the ability to fly!" or some other super power. These days, all I want is more time. I admire Neil Gaiman deeply, and it kills me that I misread and therefore unintentionally misrepresented him on my blog. I deeply regret the error, and I hope this corrects the record.

Earlier today, I wrote : I read something Neil Gaiman wrote a couple of days ago about writers. He said that anyone can start, but real writers actually finish. By that metric, I'm currently not a real writer. I misread the source, and used the wrong word there. It's actually "professional writer" and not "real writer." There's a huge difference between "not real" and "not professional." Anyone who is passionate and creative can be a "real" writer, whether they are "professional" or not. By my own metric, I'm not meeting my personal creative expectations right now, and that paragraph in my post was more about how I have all these zombie creations all over the place that have been started and abandoned, not because I don't want to bring them fully to life, but because Real Life seems be getting in the way of my creative passion right now, leaving me without a lot of energy at the end of the day to climb into my mad scientist's writing lair and unleash some creative monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Thats why I wrote: When I was a kid, when I was asked "what would you ask for, if you could have anything you want?" I used to reply, "X-ray vision" or "the ability to fly!" or some other super power. These days, all I want is more time. I admire Neil Gaiman deeply, and it kills me that I misread and therefore unintentionally misrepresented him on my blog. I deeply regret the error, and I hope this symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia orrects the record.

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures Marshmallow Peeps hat the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

Continuing Going Private's shamefully incestious link-sex with Abnormal Returns, today it points us to a slightly more masturbatory bit of link-sex in the form of a DealBook piece in which Andrew Ross Sorkin cites an Andrew Ross Sorkin article (registration required but entirely avoidable as Andrew Ross Sorkin has thoughtfully copy-pasted the Andrew Ross Sorkin article in the New York Times into Andrew Ross Sorkin's DealBook entry) on the often unrecognized long-term holding strategies by certain buyout shops in the private equity world. Says Sorkin, citing Sorkin: But while private equity firms may be larding companies with debt, they aren't dumping them as quickly as you might expect. Buyout firms often stay at the party much longer than critics acknowledge because public offerings don’t offer an immediate way for firms to generate big returns and attract new investors for future deals. The firms typically queen memorabilia ave lockups that prevent them from dumping their shares, and it often takes them several years to sell their shares — if they do so at all. The firms that own Hertz will retain an 80 percent stake in the company after it is public. Few people have acknowledged just how many private equity firms have ended up remaining big investors in companies after taking them public again. Little noticed — or at least little noted — is the fact that “tens of billions” of private equity dollars, according to Thomson Financial, are now floating around the public stock market.

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." social security disability attorneys nebraska o she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

Earlier today, I wrote : I read something Neil Gaiman wrote a couple of days ago about writers. He said that anyone can start, but real writers actually finish. By that metric, I'm currently not a real writer. I misread the source, and used the wrong word there. It's actually "professional writer" and not "real writer." There's a huge difference pos point of sale etween "not real" and "not professional." Anyone who is passionate and creative can be a "real" writer, whether they are "professional" or not. By my own metric, I'm not meeting my personal creative expectations right now, and that paragraph in my post was more about how I have all these zombie creations all over the place that have been started and abandoned, not because I don't want to bring them fully to life, but because Real Life seems be getting in the way of my creative passion right now, leaving me without a lot of energy at the end of the day to climb into my mad scientist's writing lair and unleash some creative monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Thats why I wrote: When I was a kid, when I was asked "what would you ask for, if you could have anything you want?" I used to reply, "X-ray vision" or "the ability to fly!" or some other super power. These days, all I want is more time. I admire Neil Gaiman deeply, and it kills me that I misread and therefore unintentionally misrepresented him on my blog. I deeply regret the error, and I hope this corrects the record.

Continuing Going Private's shamefully incestious link-sex with Abnormal Returns, today it points us to a slightly more masturbatory bit of link-sex in the form of a DealBook piece in which Andrew Ross Sorkin cites an Andrew Ross Sorkin article (registration required but entirely avoidable as Andrew Ross hot spot in a box orkin has thoughtfully copy-pasted the Andrew Ross Sorkin article in the New York Times into Andrew Ross Sorkin's DealBook entry) on the often unrecognized long-term holding strategies by certain buyout shops in the private equity world. Says Sorkin, citing Sorkin: But while private equity firms may be larding companies with debt, they aren't dumping them as quickly as you might expect. Buyout firms often stay at the party much longer than critics acknowledge because public offerings don’t offer an immediate way for firms to generate big returns and attract new investors for future deals. The firms typically have lockups that prevent them from dumping their shares, and it often takes them several years to sell their shares — if they do so at all. The firms that own Hertz will retain an 80 percent stake in the company after it is public. Few people have acknowledged just how many private equity firms have ended up remaining big investors in companies after taking them public again. Little noticed — or at least little noted — is the fact that “tens of billions” of private equity dollars, according to Thomson Financial, are now floating around the public stock market.

Or is it Oprahtastic? Whichever it is (and maybe it's both), the Charm School reunion is unlike any of the other reunion shows of the whole Flavor of Love gravy train. Of course, there are still some of the constants we've come to expect from the reunions: the transformations, the crowd favorites, the confrontations, the host. We've got to quit meeting like this, LaLa. Continue reading spyware removal tool 1-11: It's Springerrific!" »