- Comment Three: No I was editing it but I ran out of time. The reason you will never see 1.85 billion or pro-forma Q'98 revenues is not, as you say, because it is a disservice to LSI shareholders et al to do so BUT BECAUSE LSI USED PURCHASE ACCOUNTING. Look it up. I assume your flaunting of 30 years experience and your GRANDIOSE BS are all good for nothing. Check out companies that used pooling accounting and you will see that they very definitely use pro-forma revenue comparisons. So there
Of course you forget to mention that the reason LSI did not use pooling accounting is because pooling accounting is no longer accepted for acquisitions, since it tends to immediately overstate earnings (and revenues) in the time period following an acquisition. In short, the use of pooling accounting methods is no longer acceptable and thus the use of this method would be "grossly unfair to LSI shareholders." Indeed, the type of overstatements in pooling accounting as it pertained to acquisitions (a practice that was unique to the United States) are the very type of overstatements that Shane relied upon when he put together his phanthom $1.85 billion dollar figure as a base for revenue in 1998. In short, Shane Forbes wants it one way, but The Financial Accounting Standards Board wants it another. I repeat my core contention pertaining to your so-called financial analysis. No reputable financial analyst would use the Pro Forma figures that you used.
Moreover, Shane is off on another idiosa savant tangent because Shane will not address the core issue, which is that the only valid numbers to compare LSI's revenue growth in the upcoming year are 4Q '98 and 1Q '99, and that Shane's use of $1.85 billion dollars as a figure to represent 1998 revenues is reckless and irresponsible. Again, no reputable financial analyst would use those numbers as a basis for projecting percentage revenue growth in 1999. I close my case, and I move on.
Now Shane strikes back and says that I didn't use $2.13 billion the figure he used, but instead I rounded down to $2.1 billion. You must be kidding brittle boy. For the purposes of our so-called discussion, this is meaningless. Who cares? I will happily use the $2.13 billion, and the conclusions are still the same.
This goofiness has gone to far. I repeat. I expected an adult, and what I got was someone who used to be an actuary who used to post meaningless, unchallenged, and irresponsible revenue projections for various product components in LSI Consumer Division. Clearly my judgement was poor. Accordingly, I am going to the my self imposed SI Penalty Box for two weeks time out for bad judgement in engaging Shane. In the meantime, Shane can work on his writing and rage control. |
