Tech Companies Give Stock-Options Value, And Actually Survive
Your favorite stock might not be joining the party, but the Nasdaq composite is up double digits from a year ago. In some parts of technology, notably most things involving the Internet, we are in the midst of what might be termed Bubble II. Venture capitalists continue to find start-up companies they deem worthy of starting up. And the daily papers are full of tales of twentysomethings turned millionaires through acquisitions by companies like Google and Oracle.
If this is the end of the world as we know it, then I feel fine.
The reason for suggesting an apocalypse averted is that we are nearly finished with the first fiscal quarter for which public companies are forced to fully expense the value of the stock options given as incentives to employees.
This is a move the tech industry bitterly fought against for more than a decade, with tech trade groups warning of the consequences in news releases, one more dire than the other. Expensing options "will hurt competitiveness and economic growth," said one; another said it "would seriously undermine the robust health of the U.S. and global economies."
Now that expensing is occurring, the reaction is mostly a shrug. There are, as always, unintended consequences, but life goes on.
For one thing, the venture-capital industry has known for a while that expensing options was going to start this quarter, yet they kept funds flowing to U.S. companies. VentureOne, the Dow Jones unit that tracks venture financing, shows that 2,139 start-ups received some form of venture financing during 2005, compared with 2,120 the year before. The total amount invested, $22.1 billion, also topped the figure for 2004.
What's more, those start-ups continue to use stock options to recruit employees, despite predictions they'd be forced to abandon the practice. The fact that these start-ups might one day be post-IPO companies, and have lower earnings-per-share figures as they are forced to expense those options, is considered by most struggling start-ups to be the sort of problem you wouldn't mind having one day.
"When you are a start-up and losing money, it just doesn't enter into your discussions," said Shiv Tasker, CEO of Bluespec, a Waltham, Mass., start-up working on products for the chip-design market.
Even many established tech companies continue to give out options. For instance, every new hire at Cisco gets some options, the company says, with the amount depending on the position. That isn't to say the tech companies as a whole haven't cut back on options. According to the compensation-research firm, Equilar, 3.1% of all outstanding shares belonging to a representative group of 124 tech companies were given out as stock options in 2003. Last year, that figure fell to 2.4%, a 23% decline.
Much of that decrease can be attributed to the fact that companies like Microsoft have switched from giving stock options -- the right to buy a stock, sometimes at a reduced price -- to actually giving out shares. For many rank and file, that latter deal might well be a better one, because even if the stock price falls, it will always be worth something. With options, if the stock's value falls below the "strike price" of your option, you're out of luck.
Another bit of data from Equilar would seem to support the tech industry's arguments that in a post-expensing world, only top executives would get options, on account of the expense that would become associated with them. In 2003, 19.5% of stock options went to top officers; last year, the figure rose to 21.5%, suggesting that fewer secretaries and stock-room employees were getting theirs.
It's hard to tell if there is a trend here; the 2004 figure was 18%. But many studies have noted the extent to which corporate profits are increasingly winding up in the hands of top officers. Pension funds sure aren't getting them. If corporate wealth is indeed being increasingly skewed toward top officers, it's hard to believe the expensing of options is the real culprit.
Of course, expensing options has its downside. Some say it's bringing back the practice from the bad old dot-com days of companies putting out two sets of numbers -- one with their actual financial information, the other with the numbers the way the company itself would like them viewed.
These days, that second number means with the options expensing removed. Indeed, to the extent that Wall Street has yawned about options expensing, it's because investors have learned to simply overlook the expenses associated with options. Then again, determined investors will always find something to overlook when they put their minds to it.
For many years, nearly every visitor to Silicon Valley got a fire-and-brimstone speech from tech leaders about the evils of stock-option expensing. It's now clear the reports of the imminent death of the tech sector were greatly exaggerated. Considering the real problems facing technology in America, like dwindling federal support for research, it's a shame that so much political capital was so badly spent.
期权费用化不过如此
你看好的股票也许不在其中，不过那斯达克综合指数和一年前相比已经实现了两位数的上涨。对于某些科技股，尤其是那些和互联网有关的股票而言，我们已经进入了所谓“二次泡沫”(Bubble II)。风险资本家仍在寻找值得投资的初创公司。报纸上连篇累牍刊登的是20多岁的年轻人在他们创建的小企业被Google和甲骨文(Oracle)这类大公司收购后摇身一变成为百万富翁的故事。
如果这就是世界末日，那么我觉得还不错。
我建议大家不要一味悲观的原因是，第一财季即将结束，这是上市公司第一次必须将用以激励员工的股票期权价值全部计作费用。
科技行业为此已苦苦抗争了十多个年头，科技业组织也在新闻稿中对其后果发出警告，而且他们的措辞一个比一个耸人听闻。有的说，期权费用化“将损害竞争力和经济增长”；还有的说，这“将严重影响美国和全球经济的健康发展。”
如今期权费用化已经发生，但人们的反应大多是一笑了之。这类事总会带来人们不希望看到的影响，不过生活总要继续。
首先，风险投资行业早就知道期权费用化将在本财季启动，不过资金仍然源源涌入美国公司。据道琼斯公司(Dow Jones & Co. Inc.)旗下风险资本研究机构VentureOne统计，2005年有2,139家初创公司得到了某种形式的风险投资，而2004年是2,120家。2005年221亿美元的风险投资额也超过了2004年。
另外，尽管有人认为初创公司将被迫退出股票期权制，但事实是这些公司仍然在继续向新员工提供期权。如果这些初创公司有一天公开上市，而期权费用化又导致其每股收益减少，那么大多数斗志昂扬的初创公司想当然地认为你根本不会在意这些问题。
为芯片设计市场开发产品的Bluespec是家初创公司，其首席执行长塔斯克(Shiv Tasker)表示，“如果你是家初创公司而且在赔钱，那么根本不会讨论这个问题。”
即便是站稳脚跟的科技公司也在发放期权。比如，思科系统(Cisco Systems Inc.)的每位新员工都能得到一定的期权，数量根据职位高低决定。不过这并不意味著思科系统的期权总数没有减少。据薪资调查公司Equilar统计，124家科技公司所有已发行股的3.1%在2003年是以股票期权形式发放的，而去年这个数字减少了23%，只占已发行股的2.4%。
期权数量减少在很大程度上是因为微软(Microsoft)等一些公司已经不再发放股票期权，而是换成股票了。在许多普通员工看来，发放股票也许是一种更好的选择，因为即便股价下跌，股票也不会变得一钱不值，而期权不同，如果股价跌至所持期权的“执行价”以下，那就要血本无归、只能自认倒霉了。
另有Equilar数据表明，在期权费用化的情况下，由于期权成本的缘故，只有科技公司的高层管理者才能获得期权。2003年，19.5%的股票期权流向了高层管理者；去年这个数字上到了21.5%，这意味著秘书和仓库管理员这类低级职员得到股票期权的机会变少了。
2004年的数字是18%，现在还难以确定这是否已经成为一股潮流。不过许多研究发现，越来越多的公司利润被高层管理人士占有。退休基金当然不会因此受益。如果公司财富确实在向高层管理者转移，那么就不能说期权费用化是罪魁祸首了。
当然，期权费用化也有缺点。有人认为这令过去网络泡沫时期公司发布两套数字的做法死灰复燃──第一套是公司真正的财务信息，第二套则是公司希望看到的数字。
如今这第二套数字就意味著期权不计入费用。华尔街对期权费用化的宣传有限，这当然是因为投资者已经习惯省略期权的相关费用。当然，投资者如果决意要略过一些东西，他们总能办得到。
多年来，几乎每一位到过硅谷的人都曾听过科技业领袖人物激情洋溢有关股票期权费用化的演讲。现在看来显而易见的是，科技类股行将消失的报导显然言过其实了。想到美国科技行业面临的真正问题──比如用于科研的联邦经费日渐减少──你会感到大量的政治资本被如此糟蹋掉实在是非常可惜的事。
