Mattson Technology Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Mattson Technology

MTSN 3.600

0.0%

May 12 5:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Q. who wrote (3283)	2/2/2001 8:50:26 AM
From: LemurHouse	Read Replies (2) of 3661

The STEAG AR issue has nothing to do with SAB 101. The report you posted seems to suggest that the analyst is including the $200 of STEAG accounts receivable in the coming year's revenue projections for the combined company. Money that was deferred not because of SAB 101, but because STEAGS accounting is in such disorder. If in fact this is the case, then that would be a source of concern given that the amount in question represents 1/3 of the total projected revenues for the year, and the necessary conclusion would be that actual new sales would be that much less. (Jiggered a bit because of SAB 101.) This is hard to believe, but it seems to be what Deahana is saying. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the point -- I'd be most happy to hear another explanation. With regard to the SAB 101 issue, I agree that it should not materially affect cash flow or the fundamentals of the business. At least not after the first quarter or two. However, it does make for some confusing comparisons (i.e., it seems that they are deferring cost of sales as well as revenue?) and it will temporarily affect such superficial measures such as PE and possibly (?) book to bill. Reasonable people will look past these numbers; but Mr. Market ain't always rational and I wouldn't be surprised to see a negative market reaction next quarter. I actually am in favor of SAB 101 as being positive for investors in the long term -- having been burned by a software company which grossly inflated its sales numbers through just the sort of shennanigans that SAB 101 is designed to prevent. But its an awkward change-over, and will undoubtedly cause some pain. If anyone can shed any light on the STEAG revenue's inclusion or non-inclusion in the projected sales numbers, please by all means do so! AD

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next