Ron Insana, I am a great fan of yours going back to the FNN days. I am glad to see you are getting some NBC exposure, too. I have a couple of suggestions that might clarify some reports:
1. Editorials should be clearly labeled. CNBC has labels for everything else, why not for editorial commentary? Ticker Talk does not say editorial to me.
2. The SEC in conjunction with the AICPA, the accounting standards board and every other accounting group has developed accounting rules and guidelines that are to promote consistency, accuracy and full disclosure. These rules, as you know, are called GAAP. When a company reports earnings, the number that is highlighted should be the earnings as determined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, not whatever the company, some analyst or promoter wants them to be. Explanatory information is fine, but headlines that say AMZN beats estimates when they lost $0.90 vs. estimates of $0.57 could be misleading. Does the media have an agreement to post earnings before (frequently) non-recurring charges that I don't know about? It's not just CNBC, but Zack's, and others also do it.
This stock has had lots of debate over whether the SEC's insistence that the acquisition goodwill be amortized over three years as opposed to a one-time charge, is included in the estimates. If you were an analyst recommending the stock, what would you say when asked if they were in your estimate? Well, you would probably tell the truth. Some others might not.
Gotta go. Time to re-read AMZN's latest missive.
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to this board.
Bob
|
