Lots of questions about Siebel all of a sudden!
FaultLine,
No, I didn't use babelfish. :) The reason the risk of BEAS not becoming a gorilla might be reduced has to do with the likelihood that its app server will be adopted as the industry standard. For that to happen, some think the major apps companies need to partner with BEAS by commiting to write their software code to work with the BEAS server. It was noted that Siebel, being one of the biggest baddest apps companies, had not made that decision. Apparently that's no longer the case.
Until I study up on BEAS, anything beyond that explanation will have to come from someone more knowledgeable of the BEAS story than I. You might remember that Tinker and I wrote months ago about our surprise in the apparent lack of interest in BEAS on this thread.
Freeus,
I don't know how to respond to your post asking why BEAS won't be a gorilla and asking why Siebel will be a stronger gorilla. What's the basis of your question? Try me again if I'm missing something. Try me again even if it's that rare occasion that I'm not missing something.
Huey,
I'm not comfortable responding to many of your questions because I haven't read the Epoch report yet and because the computer I'm using at the moment doesn't have the bookmarks I regularly use.
I can respond to the issue about the 10k, though. You'll notice that pro forma net income was about $222 million. Pro forma net income available to shareholders was about $123 million. The difference is explained by the roughly $99 million accretion of perferred stock relating to the acquisition of OnSite.
From the 10K: "The Company had pro forma net income of $41.9 million, $109.7 million and $221.9 million for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively. Pro forma net income available to common stockholders was $41.6 million and $56.5 million for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1999, respectively, as compared to $123.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2000. Pro forma net income has been reduced by accretion on OpenSite's mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock to determine pro forma net income available to common stockholders. The accounting for OpenSite's mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock required non-cash accretion to the then current fair value of the common stock into which the mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock was convertible. This resulted in a non-cash charge to accretion and offsetting credit to mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock for each of the years ended December 31, 1998, 1999 and 2000. The amount of accretion for an income statement period was dependent upon how much the fair value of OpenSite's common stock fluctuated during that period. In connection with the Company's acquisition of OpenSite, the holders of the mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock converted their shares pursuant to their existing terms on a one for one basis into shares of OpenSite's common stock. Accordingly, the Company stopped recording accretion on the mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock on May 17, 2000.
Pro forma diluted net income available per common share was $0.10, $0.12 and $0.24 in fiscal 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively."
Maybe one of our accounting gurus will explain in English what that gobbledygook means, because I believe it is at the source of your confusion.
--Mike Buckley |
