Intel Corporation (INTC) 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 : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 36.82

+1.5%

Dec 19 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Robert O who wrote (145328)	10/15/2001 10:32:30 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) of 186894

Robert O: Now we get to the real reason you want to use Pro Forma numbers. Using them makes Intel look worse than AMD. Ah, too bad! Intel is too fragile to compare to others on equal terms, isn't that what you are saying. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Aren't you implying that Intel is uncompetitive without special ongoing subsidies? And here you are saying to companies, lie to me and all others all you want to, I would never take you to task. All I am saying that if a company wants to add another way to display things then it should do it in a separate document entirely and title it so (like "Operational Profits Per Share"). That way there is no mistaking it for the earnings for the quarter which is a mandated term with a precise definition. And no one would end up mistaking one for the other. Perhaps all the government may require is that standard terms may not be used with any not fitting the standard definition. Thus "Pro Forma Earnings" is disallowed, but "Pro Forma Profits per Share" or "Operational PPS" would be acceptable for non GAAP derived earnings. Pete

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next