Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : COM21 (CMTO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (1808)	2/22/2000 9:13:00 AM
From: zbyslaw owczarczyk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2347

As you said Dan.B it is not DOSIC(industry standard) but nobody argue that it is not so call "indusrty standard" BTW, you are much slicker then Bill C. itself and may be analysts are wrong and TERN will growth 150% Q by Q, and with the purchase of another several Israeli companies they get change they huge losses to pro forma gains. I am sure Gilder will say soon that TERN will takeover entire cable industry and its DSL will rule the world, so TERN can go and by QCOM just for change. What do you say Dan.B. Hey you have to listen to Gilder, he is your Good. Amen

To: Dan B. who wrote (1808)	2/22/2000 11:41:00 AM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2347

No. Starting with 28million in the 4th Q of '99, 70% sequential by Q growth would take them to 494.6 million in 2000, more than double the analyst projection. I was wrong, I must have calculated 3 quarters and not 4. But they were hypothetical numbers and a hypothetical exercise and divert us from the real concerns based on real numbers brought up in that same post. Could you comment on my questions regarding TERN's quarterly report? Let me restate what I said earlier: >>>>> SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 18, 2000--Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:TERN - news), a leading supplier of broadband networking equipment, today reported a 206 percent increase in annual revenues for the year ended December 31, 1999, and that the company reached profitability in the fourth quarter on a pro forma basis. Revenues for the fourth quarter of 1999 grew to $38.7 million, an increase of 200 percent over the revenues for the fourth quarter of 1998 of $12.9 million. >>>>> Note the "200 percent increase in annual revenues" includes the $9 million they couldn't recognize from Rogers. Back that out and the increase is 114%. But this isn't exactly a fair comparison, either. What about the Radwiz earnings that were included in 1999 that didn't exist in 1998? To get a fair year over year comparison, you'd have to back out those numbers, too. A meaningful "pro forma" report compares on-going operations. I can't find a number for Radwiz for Q4, but their Q3 revenues were 1.5 million. Since Imedia's revenues were able to bring Q4 results from an expected loss of .19 to a gain of .04, can we assume that 1.5 million would have grown to, what, 2.5 million in Q4? If so, let's back that out of the $28 million for total revenues of $25.5 million. That brings y/y growth to right around 100%. I'd call their official 200% growth number about 100% off. Note what Terayon's numbers exclude: <<<<< In the quarter, Terayon achieved profitability, with pro forma net income of $1.2 million, or $.04 per share diluted. This excludes non-cash charges for in-process research and development and the amortization of intangible assets related to the acquisition of Imedia Corporation and Radwiz Ltd. and the cost of two warrants to purchase common stock. Including the charges related to amortization of intangibles, in-process research and development and the cost of the two warrants, the net loss for the fourth quarter of 1999 was $19.0 million or $0.83 per share. This compares to a net loss for the fourth quarter of 1998 of $5.4 million or $0.33 per share. Terayon's results for the fourth quarter of 1999 include the results of Radwiz Ltd. from November 22, 1999, the closing date of the Radwiz acquisition. <<<< The same revenue recognition was used in the yearly figures, this time including both Imedia and Radwiz numbers when comparing year over year gains. <<<< For the year ended December 31, 1999, revenues increased over 200 percent to $97.0 million, compared to $31.7 million for 1998. The pro forma net loss for the year ended December 31, 1999 was $8.2 million or $0.40 per share. This excludes non-cash charges for in-process research and development and the amortization of intangible assets related to the acquisition of Imedia Corporation and Radwiz Ltd. and the cost of two warrants to purchase common stock. The net loss for the same period in 1998 was $23.2 million, or $2.58 per share, excluding a dividend of $23.9 million, or $2.66 per share, recorded in connection with certain equity financing. The net loss for the year ended December 31, 1999, including the non-cash charge related to amortization of intangibles, in-process research and development and the cost of the two warrants was $64.1 million or $3.11 per share. The net loss for the same period in 1998, including the dividend, was $47.1 million or $5.25 per share. Terayon's results for the year ended December 31, 1999 include the results of Imedia Corporation from September 16, 1999, the closing date of the Imedia acquisition, and the results of Radwiz Ltd. from November 22, 1999, the closing date of the Radwiz acquisition. >>>> What would the percentages have been if a true pro forma comparison had been done? TIA -- Pat