Carl and smear campaign: My post did not say that any official record was other than -0.15 - it said the opposite. My post referred to a message from NETP IR to the effect that the private conversations it had with analysts was that de facto they considered it -0.12, even though NETP had declared -0.15, because they considered that in taking $800,000 as an operational expense in 2Q, even though it was an operational loss in 3Q, NETP had acted very conservatively. In other words, to get a true picture of operations in 2Q, one would have to exclude the $800,000. Furthermore, some or all of the $800,000 may be recovered if they sub-let the lease.
I pointed out that I was commenting on a report of an e-mail from NETP IR and that there were two levels of belief required (a) that the e-mail had been accurately reported and (b) that NETP had had such conversations.
I think it is plausible and also worth discussing because I also think that if the operational expenses for 2Q only had been taken into consideration the loss in the 2Q was -0.12 cents not -0.15 and, if the above scenario happened, the analysts were correct.
Finally, to Carl, it is not the analysts who declare the official loss in 2Q, it is the company. They declare it in documents intended to be filed, and actually filed, with the SEC. NETP declared -0.15. The summaries you referred to are 3rd-hand commercial records, first of what NETP declared to the SEC and then, by implication, what analysts are obliged to use. This does not detract from the point of my post. Despite this official SEC-filed record, analysts communicated to NETP privately the views I have referred to above.
We know that there were discussions with analysts because NETP changed its official results from -0.16 cents to -0.15 a couple of hours before the press release partly because analysts informed NETP that they did not include the cost of stock options in their formula. NETP had a discussion with their auditors and agreed to make the last-minute change. If NETP had not made that change then First Call and the other commercial records would show that analysts were using -0.16 cents because that, in fact, is what NETP would have filed with the SEC whatever the analysts thought.
Having explained the above to the best of my ability, I will now leave further comment/explanation/clarification on that item to anyone else who wants to take it further.
In my own calculations of what the true state of affairs is in 2Q, I use the figure of -0.12 whatever NETP or the analysts say. But I am cognisant of the fact, that -0.12 cents is not necessarily a 30% positive surprise for analysts. -0.12 cents equates with about -0.14 or -0.15 cents if the number of shares in 1Q had been used by analysts instead of the expanded number used in 2Q. I do not know whether some or all of the analysts had adjusted their expectations for 2Q to accommodate the extra shares, so to be safe, I will assume not. |
