Tad, I'm trying to work out some stuff on the JV's and I've run into a problem.
If the cost of products purchased from the JV's was stated as $149.6
mil on their Q299 10-Q for the first 6 months of their FY and the
Q399 10-Q states that their costs for products in Q3 was $106.1 mil.
it would seem that the cummulative cost for the first 9 months of
FY99 would be $255.7 (6 month costs + MRQ costs).
However, it isn't. They have it down as $221.3.
I'm wondering if they ever explained why there appears to be a $34.4
mil. difference between what's stated in the most recent 10-Q and
what logic would seem to suggest.
When they call them "aggregated net costs", I'm taking that to mean
simply TECH + KMT.
And by "net costs", I'm interpreting that as the gross costs of units
purchased minus whatever services, equipment, process fees, etc.
they get...
Actually, wait a second...in the process of writing this, I answered
my own question. So, I guess this now becomes an "observation".
Perhaps a useless one (unless one of your idiosyncracies in life is
a real hatred of situations where persons/institutions can use the
truth to evade THE TRUTH, in which case, it's still useless, but at
least you get some minor self-satisfaction <g>).
The company stated the JV costs as gross costs on their Q1 and Q2
10-Q's, but suddenly for some reason decided that when stating the
cummulative cost total over the last 9 months, they would state it
as "net costs".
My question would be why?
For example:
Q199 Q299 Q399
product purchases in quarter 46.1 10-Q 103.5 10-Q 106.1 10-Q
cumm total 46.1 my calc 149.6 10-Q 221.3 10-Q
prior cumm + MRQ 149.6 my calc 255.7 my calc
diff 0 my calc -34.4 my calc
assembly/test services 12.9 10-Q 21.5 10-Q 0
cumm total 34.4 10-Q
"net costs" 33.2 my calc 82 my calc 106.1 10-Q
cumm total 115.2 my calc 221.3 10-Q
% change gross cost to net cost 28.0% 20.8% 0.0%
Converting the prior Q costs to net costs by adjusting for
the "test/assembly" services gives 221.3 cummulative v. 255.7.
Of course, in the process, one notices the magnitude of
their "test/assmebly" offset, which appears to have lowered their
actual "net costs" by 28.0% and 20.8% Q1 and Q2, respectively.
And yet, suddenly what happened last Q? It would seem that that went
to zero. Of course, any reference to test/assembly services is
missing from the last 10-Q - an obvious departure from Q1 and Q2 in
which they were clearly stated.
Okay, maybe this flips from an observation back to a question again.
A) does the above seem right?
B) if it is right, did they mention it or give any explanation for it?
Best regards,
Tom
|
