Skeeter, Skeeter, Skeeter.....Skeeter:
First, how are ya, buddy, long time no board bump.
<duke, please explain why rising stock prices mean that accounting shenanigans are NOT occurring. tia...>
You're missin' my drift, here. Your criticism of GTW way back then was that they were playing with the administrative expenses lines, which they weren't, at least not too much.
I am not saying that GTW is the Kunta Kinte of Corporate Conservatism. They are not. They do have, IMO, substantial other Balance Sheet problems; and one day that pidgin is going to come home to roost; and at that time they will take the old "Number Four" of the high board. But not for the reasons you gave. You will be right but for the wrong reasons.
With Intel.... but first a lesson in accounting:
Normally, capital gains from investments should not be considered as operating income. Your accounting concern here would be that they are separately stated, which Intel, and other good companies, do.
BUT, in Intel's case, an argument can be made to include some capital gains in considering operating income. Intel does not invest in companies because they want to improve corporate income by playing the Pennies. Each investment has a strategic meaning to Intel, OTHER THAN GENERATING CAPITAL GAINS.
You might look at it as money that they do not have to spent on R&D or to establish strategic alliances which will result in addition INCOME from other Intel products or even payments to secure future supply of components, etc.
NOW, I do not wish to engage in a colloquy of accounting principles. THESE AMOUNTS ARE SEPARATELY REPORTED. Read them how you will.
BUT DON'T REFER TO THEM AS "PADDED" earnings,....unless of course, you are undisclosed short, and then you can say anything you want to. Just ask TokyoJoe. :))))
Best, always. And congrats on your picks.
Duke |
