Allen -
If the warning was really about Q2 and not Q1, why didn’t they know anything about Q2 beyond suggesting revenues might not show sequential growth? You might recall from the CC that they put off talking about Q2 or FY guidance, waiting until they had a chance to digest Q1 results and to do DD about futures.
If this was all about Q2, then I would suggest it would have waited until the earnings CC on May 17, if only because that’s what they did anyway....
I believe, but do not know, that a company management is required to report material changes at the time that they become apparent, and are not allowed to report them as convenient. Of course, this is undoubtedly observed more in the breach than in actuality. However, it may, in any case, have been more important to report the weakness at a time when the market happens to be more interested in rewarding any reduction in uncertainty than in penalizing any economic weakness.
Given that the company guidance had firmly projected 68 cents of EPS for all of FY02, the fact that analyst expectations now fall as low as 29 cents would seem to be a good indication that either the warning is real, or there has been an awfully large misinterpretation.
Regards, Don |
