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 : Vari-L (VARL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John J. Riley who wrote (2230)	5/17/2000 11:39:00 AM
From: J Stone	Respond to of 2702

"In connection therewith, the independent accounting firm is evaluating the Company's internal accounting procedures, including but not limited to the Company's policies and practices concerning the capitalization of labor expense and other costs and the appropriate documentation thereof. The Company believes that such evaluation may result in further adjustments of the Company's financial statements. The amount of such adjustments, if any, cannot presently be determined by the Company." I'll give Jon Clark the benefit of the doubt on this one. Though if more issues popup besides capitalization, I'll reconsider. I believe any decent audit firm, as part of its due diligence, should have previously analyzed VARL's methodology for capitalizing costs. Absolutely, no excuse for this to happen now. Haugen, Springer & Co. must go. Bring in 1 of the Big 5 that knows the issues facing high-tech companies.

To: John J. Riley who wrote (2230)	5/17/2000 11:43:00 AM
From: Madharry	Respond to of 2702

Speaking of dilution- anyone notice how complicated this appears to be: looks like for dillution calculations you take the options with shares above the exercise price and then you deduct the number of shares you could have bought with the exercise price and the tax savings. I guess dilution will drop significantly next quarter-reflecting our diminishing shareholder wealth.

To: John J. Riley who wrote (2230)	5/17/2000 11:46:00 AM
From: Labrador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2702

Too bad that they're using their current accounting firm to perform the study. Isn't this the same accounting firm that permitted the overstated 1997 revenues, and doesn't know how to calculate fully diluted earnings per share? Didn't they previous examine the company's capitalization policy in signing off on the 1997/1998/1999 financial statements? By the way, I am surprised that the number of shares is correct for the fully diluted earnings per share for the 4th quarter of 1999. Wouldn't the same problem be present?

To: John J. Riley who wrote (2230)	5/17/2000 12:15:00 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2702

Hi John - I wouldn't go that far. Thus far, I think VARL is still very much a squeaky clean outfit. To restate 1997 results may look bad in the PR dept, but it is a LT positive to show the company is making an effort. VARL is probably way ahead of other small outfits in the FASB and SAB depts! That said, if mgt should probably look at its own compensation committee again. It might ve served its purpose once upon a time. However, times are a'changing. If VARL wants to play the big boy game, be a big boy :) best, Bosco