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 : Net Perceptions, Inc. (NETP) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (2597)	7/30/2000 4:46:46 AM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2908

Carl and smear campaign: My post did not say that any official record was other than -0.15 - it said the opposite. My post referred to a message from NETP IR to the effect that the private conversations it had with analysts was that de facto they considered it -0.12, even though NETP had declared -0.15, because they considered that in taking $800,000 as an operational expense in 2Q, even though it was an operational loss in 3Q, NETP had acted very conservatively. In other words, to get a true picture of operations in 2Q, one would have to exclude the $800,000. Furthermore, some or all of the $800,000 may be recovered if they sub-let the lease. I pointed out that I was commenting on a report of an e-mail from NETP IR and that there were two levels of belief required (a) that the e-mail had been accurately reported and (b) that NETP had had such conversations. I think it is plausible and also worth discussing because I also think that if the operational expenses for 2Q only had been taken into consideration the loss in the 2Q was -0.12 cents not -0.15 and, if the above scenario happened, the analysts were correct. Finally, to Carl, it is not the analysts who declare the official loss in 2Q, it is the company. They declare it in documents intended to be filed, and actually filed, with the SEC. NETP declared -0.15. The summaries you referred to are 3rd-hand commercial records, first of what NETP declared to the SEC and then, by implication, what analysts are obliged to use. This does not detract from the point of my post. Despite this official SEC-filed record, analysts communicated to NETP privately the views I have referred to above. We know that there were discussions with analysts because NETP changed its official results from -0.16 cents to -0.15 a couple of hours before the press release partly because analysts informed NETP that they did not include the cost of stock options in their formula. NETP had a discussion with their auditors and agreed to make the last-minute change. If NETP had not made that change then First Call and the other commercial records would show that analysts were using -0.16 cents because that, in fact, is what NETP would have filed with the SEC whatever the analysts thought. Having explained the above to the best of my ability, I will now leave further comment/explanation/clarification on that item to anyone else who wants to take it further. In my own calculations of what the true state of affairs is in 2Q, I use the figure of -0.12 whatever NETP or the analysts say. But I am cognisant of the fact, that -0.12 cents is not necessarily a 30% positive surprise for analysts. -0.12 cents equates with about -0.14 or -0.15 cents if the number of shares in 1Q had been used by analysts instead of the expanded number used in 2Q. I do not know whether some or all of the analysts had adjusted their expectations for 2Q to accommodate the extra shares, so to be safe, I will assume not.

To: Carl R. who wrote (2597)	7/30/2000 7:27:25 AM
From: bernieb2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2908

Victor - Referring to the numbers of .15 or .12, this will become a guage as to how the analysis does their job. Any analysis worth a hill of beans would be using the .12 to determine profitability, cost controls, etc. as their guide. For the sake of accuracy though I understand they would use the .15 since that is actually what was reported and should be used. This is like when they say IBM has an earnings of .50 including a one time profit of .10 from ...., Unfortunately we're not IBM, so no one reads past the number reported to the asterick that follows. Perhaps they should try to include that asterick, ie... Net Perceptions earnings was (.15) including a one-time charge-off of .03 for lease abandonment. You know, the more you said about them NOT having to take the full write-off, the more I wonder if they really did have to take it. The two accountants I talked to did say that had to know more about the situation to be sure. It also would look really interesting if we hit something like (.07) next quarter showing a (.08) change. I'm also considering what effect the road shows and the analysis day could have on this stock. Wonder what and how many companies are doing the same thing because they're in the same boat right now. That's where the stature of the management would be a big determining factor in who they decide to put their money with. Anyone have any thoughts on this...