Hi Armin - I think the restatement horse has been beaten too many times over :). They simply miscalculated some option stuff. No big deal in and of itself! So happens that it coincided with 2 couple of Qs of flat earnings due to dilution, now it is under the microscope. As I ve said before, I have heard of people doing hi tech finance, they are not the best book keepers. Period. Of course, with the advent of FASB and SAB etc etc, and SEC is getting more watchful, and investors start taking matter into their own hands by reading the SEC filings, they'd better be careful. Like I said previously, restatement is not necessarily a bad thing. Many people file amended tax returns every year. Sometimes for the sake of continuity. Sometimes for the sake of completeness. The key is whether VARL stuff channels or has side contracts etc. VARL products have been selling, as indicated by her top line, so I think we are making mountains out of a moe hill.
Repricing some of mgt options [not necessarily canceling them outright] is not unimaginable. It has happened before. It is a small price to pay to put the doubt behind them once and for all. CA mgt literally gave back some of the options already exercised [not sure if it was court ordered though :).] Of course, Mr Wang & crew still have a lot of stocks --- and more to come. If VARL doesn't want to be another Reebok, it is a gutsy way to show good faith.
I don't mind them changing auditor. People do that even often anyway. IMHO, however, it simply is as weak as serving the controler's head on a platter. |
