SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Killswitch who wrote (14506)10/24/2002 9:20:39 AM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) of 57684
 
If they're only going to recalculate these "core" numbers back to '96 or whatever recent year the article said, then you can't draw ANY conclusions from this new measure. Pension accounting has been a bizarre area for much much longer than the last five or six years. Try the last 30+ years, at least. In any case, no matter how far back you look, you can't take a whole new measure of profitability and then turn around and apply a historical average valuation multiple to it that is based on another measure entirely.

Besides, whenever you start rolling a bunch of estimated, theoretical expenses (or future expenses) like options "expenses" and pension costs into current numbers, you end up with nothing more than someone's opinion of what profits might have been had one been able to know with certainty what the real expenses were.

And what's the sense in making these adjustments to GAAP earnings instead of the more widely watched operating earnings? If only items that are truly non-recurring or non-operating in nature are excluded in arriving at operating earnings, and I'm sure S&P would stand behind this claim about their own published number, then isn't that the more meaningful measure of profitability?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext