Microsoft Can Count. Intel Can't.
Tech companies have a choice of two paths, and both were on display yesterday.
Microsoft Corp. -- long viewed by laymen, computer geeks and the feds as the Darth Vader of the technology world -- decided to do right by shareholders. After a long period of anticipation, the company finally figured out what it wants to do with its Olympian mound of green, and it chose wisely.
Microsoft decided to give back to shareholders even more cash than investors had been expecting. The company raised its ongoing dividend, giving the company about 1% dividend yield; said it would buy back $30 billion of stock over four years; and said it would issue a special $32 billion one-time payout. (See related article.)
LONG AND SHORT MAILBOX
Reader comments -- and Jesse Eisinger's answers -- about the Long and Short column. Published Monday mornings.
Please send comments and questions to
longandshort@wsj.com.
And then there is the path of the irresponsible. It has been chosen by Intel Corp. and Cisco Systems Inc. and denizens of Silicon Valley. Nonetheless, these companies are celebrated by investors and accorded huge multiples. These are the companies that refuse to pay significant dividends, hoard cash and buy back stock merely to mask the massive dilution that comes from their shareholder-damaging stock-option programs.
As Microsoft was announcing its shareholder-friendly plan, Silicon Valley was sitting on the shoulders of members of Congress, whispering sweet nothings in their ears. As in, stock options cost nothing. And 312 members of the House listened.
That was the number of congressmen who voted for the Baker Bill, a measure that damages efforts of the Financial Accounting Standards Board to enact rules mandating the expensing of stock options. The bill violates FASB's independence and fights the inevitable. Hundreds of companies have moved to voluntarily expense stock options because compensation costs companies money -- no matter what Silicon Valley will have Congress believe.
Microsoft, for its part, has gotten rid of stock options. It will take cash that is merely earning a small return and give it back to the owners of the company. (Bill Gates, one of those owners, doesn't do badly by this deal, reaping more than $3 billion. He says he will donate it to charity; he can afford it.)
Not able to fight stock-option expensing completely, Silicon Valley was content with a compromise. Knowing that something is wrong with not expensing any stock options, the writers of the Baker Bill want stock options for only the CEO and the next four highest-paid executives to be expensed.
So some expenses are more equal than others. While Congress is at it, why not make only the salaries of the top dogs expenses, while the lower rungs of employees get to be free for a company? Think of how many employees a company could hire if it didn't cost them anything. Why, if Congress could outlaw all expenses, the economy would really boom.
The bill also calls for expensed options to exclude in their estimate any expectation of future volatility for the underlying stock, an assumption that the shares won't fluctuate. This would undervalue the cost of the now-reduced number of options that companies would be forced to expense and undermine the remaining vestige of option expensing.
Warren Buffett rightly has said that if the bill becomes law it "could cause the mathematical lunacy record to move east from Indiana." That's where, famously -- and perhaps apocryphally -- the Indiana state legislature voted to simplify the value of Pi to 3.2 to make the life of schoolchildren easier.
These delaying tactics won't succeed. The Senate is highly unlikely to let the Baker Bill become law. And investors are figuring out for themselves the pernicious dilutive effects of stock options. In the coming years, investors will gravitate to those tech companies that take the right path. And Microsoft will be at the top of that list.
Corrections & Amplifications:
Intel Corp. has paid a dividend since 1992. The column above incorrectly indicated that it was among Silicon Valley companies that refuse to do so.
科技公司对现金用途各有打算
现金怎么花，科技公司有两条路可选。上周二这两条道路都已经明确展现在投资者眼前。
微软(Microsoft Corp.)──这个被外行、电脑怪杰和联邦政府看作黑暗武士(Darth Vader)的公司──决定做一些有利于股东的事情。经过了漫长的等待，微软终于决定了这笔堆积如山的现金的用处，而且堪称明智。
微软决定向股东派发现金，慷慨程度甚至超过了投资者预期。微软提高了现有的派息水平，使得股息收益率达到了1%左右；并表示4年内将回购300亿美元股票，派发特别股息320亿美元。
但也有不那么负责任的公司，这就是英特尔(Intel Corp.)、思科系统(Cisco Systems Inc.)及其他矽谷公司。尽管这些公司的股票也被投资者追捧，本益比达到很高水平，它们拒绝派息，大量储备现金，即使回购股票也只是为了掩饰损害股东利益的期权计划带来的巨大稀释效应。
就在微软宣布这项有利于股东的计划时，矽谷正在美国国会(Congress)游说，称股票期权并未产生费用。有312位众议员(House)听信了他们的辞令，为贝克议案(Baker Bill)投下了赞成票。
这个议案试图否决美国财务会计标准委员会(Financial Accounting Standards Board, 简称FASB)有关执行股票期权费用化的努力，不仅侵犯了FASB的独立，也不啻是在大势所趋面前的螳臂挡车。不管矽谷想给议员们灌输什么想法，迄今已有数百家公司主动将期权计为费用，因为员工薪酬总是要公司掏出钱来的。
就微软而言，它已经取消了股票期权，并打算将闲置的现金返还给大小股东们。这对同为股东的比尔?盖茨(Bill Gates)来说也不错，他可能获得30多亿美元。盖茨表示，打算将这笔钱捐给慈善事业；他也的确捐得起。
既然无法全盘否定期权费用化，矽谷公司也只好作出妥协。明知股票期权不费用化是错误的，贝克议案的支持者们于是希望，至把那些发给公司首席执行长和其他四位收入排名最高的管理人员的期权计作费用。
但费用与费用不一样么？如果国会意在取消期权费用化，为什么不规定只有管理高层的薪水可计为费用，而不必将其他职位较低的雇员的薪水算作费用？如果雇佣员工真的花不了多少钱，想想看一家公司会雇佣多少？如果国会能取消一切费用，美国经济定然会达到极端的繁荣。
该议案还呼吁期权费用化不考虑未来股价的波动，也就是假定股价不会波动。这会低估期权的成本，动摇期权费用化的宗旨。
正像沃伦?巴菲特(Warren Buffett)指出的那样，如果贝克议案获得通过，那么东海岸就会出现印地安纳州那样的数学计算混乱。坊间盛传印地安纳州议会为了让学生们计算方便，将圆周率值简化至3.2。
这些拖延战术不会得逞。美国参议院(Senate)通过贝克议案的可能性微乎其微。投资者们逐步意识到股票期权的负面稀释效应。未来几年，他们将倒向那些选择了正确道路的科技公司，而微软将是首选。
