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 : Westell WSTL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (20098)	8/16/2000 9:36:00 PM
From: DWCraig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21342

Shifting the debate, are you now, 'Auric'? You said: "Amortization HAS NOTHING to do with CASHFLOW, not one friggen thing." Clearly it does, and I showed that with your own post. You didn't miss the point of my note, you saw it quite clearly. As for your comment about 'specious homework', facts aren't specious, Auric, although most, if not all, of your arguments are. By the way, I knew all along that you didn't have the personal discipline NOT to peek at my posts after declaring that you had put me on 'Ignore'. And, you'll no doubt recall, I said that at the time.

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (20098)	8/16/2000 10:39:41 PM
From: BWAC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21342

"On a net loss of 5.2 M, add back depreciation of 10.5 M and the overall LOSS on an operating cash flow basis was 22.9 Million. Got it? Get it? " Good grief you are thick. This last statement of yours makes no sense. It was no a loss of 22.9 Million. IT WAS A USE OF 22.9 Million. A USE of cash. USE. NET USE. Its been posted 100 times today how and where the cash was used in operations. It was used to finance the ramp in sales which created accounts receivable and a higher inventory going forward. Your continued smoke screen and sky is falling yelling on this issue is very unprofessional. I know you are very aware that what you are posting is not right and does not tell the whole story. Your logic is intentionally misdirected and misapplied, in my opinion. It is inconceivable that you do not understand these things correctly. Why do you persist in trying to misdirect and misinform these good people? What do you stand to gain by doing so? Do you think it is right for a professional to come on these boards and intentionally misdirect others?

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (20098)	8/17/2000 3:00:29 AM
From: ELH1006	Respond to of 21342

Auric, if things are so bad at Westell, why did working capital (current assets less current liabilities) actually increase by $4.9 million for the quarter? I didn't see any proceeds from the sale of fixed assets or new stock or the issuance of new debt. Hmm, guess it just fell from the sky. I would appreciate your analysis of this fact rather than your typical response of trying to blow smoke up our rearends. I patiently await your response.

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (20098)	8/18/2000 7:50:28 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21342

They must be turds. If I have a loss of say, 5 Millions and add back (noncash, for boneheads, that is) depreciation of 10 Mil, then i have positive cashflow of five. If I have not, than the hut must be burning at other places... but I know it is not up to you to judge that,..maybe, AR and AP is not a problem for Cráche... For the other doughnuts on the thread... Guess what... If I borrowed money (how can I dare!) built a house... work 24 hours, but I'm bleeding red ink in cash terms month after months ... would my creditors be happy with me? have a good day, Sir!