Hi, Larry,
I too was interested in the First Union guy's question. I was perversely hoping for an explanation, but was not surprised that none was forthcoming. I've tried in the past to get such an explanation, but was unsuccessful. Of course I wasn't surprised then, either.
If I were in Lev's place, I wouldn't answer. Answering is to risk undermining if not repudiating one set of statements or the other. It's a no-win situation for him. Less perversely, I was glad he didn't answer. He doesn't need the problems of the ensuing uproar.
Moreover, in the end I don't think the answer matters. I think the appropriate way to look at it is to consider the situation as analogous to the half-glass situation. It can be described as half full, or half empty. Each is true; neither is "truer" than the other; each has its own connotations. The SEC filings are the glass half empty interpretation; the conference calls are the glass half full. Both should be considered when evaluating the situation.
I realize these comments raise as many questions as they answer, but I cannot treat them now. I think, however, that Lev would agree to this interpretation. Building an understanding of the company that embraces both is part of -- if not the essence of -- due diligence.
Regards, lws |
