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.
Technology Stocks : CRUS, good buy?
CRUS 130.34+0.1%Jan 30 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: richard surckla who wrote (6923)4/21/1999 8:01:00 PM
From: Synapsid  Read Replies (1) of 8193
 
The financials are getting harder and harder to decipher. The $0.10 seems to be almost a number out of a hat. The release lists core business results as $0.07 on revenues of $115M (which is a significant decrease from $130M+ last quarter, but could have been worse). With a myriad of charges, does the $0.10 or $0.07 really mean anything? One could argue that the company could create any per-share earnings it wants by fooling around with the charges in one way or another.

About the huge $189M charge to cost of sales and the $33M charge for "restructuring and other costs", we know very little. The $189M charge is described as "impairment of assets related to MiCRUS and Cirent". One could interpret this as part of a fab deal, but that's not clear at all. It is mentioned following the same "pursuant to the previously announced restructuring" phrase that was in the previous report in the context of wafer underutilization charges, which I believe have nothing to do with the fab deal itself.

The fact that the CFO resigned in the context of the recent series of blurry earnings reports raises a few questions.

I guess a definite agreement and statement on the fab deals is the only thing that can make the waters clear again.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext