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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ahda who wrote (1120)	10/21/2000 10:33:21 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

"The window is closing, but it ain't shut yet." Each time I've read the preceding statement it was in connection with the subject of Ray's article. Can anyone here or lurking succinctly explain where p-o-i accounting stands now?

To: Ahda who wrote (1120)	10/22/2000 1:46:50 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

You are correct. The revision is supposed to take effect at the real dawning of the millenium. I've seen scant evidence that the change is to be quashed. While CSCO may have abused the method and been culpable of a whopper, abetting the decision to change the rules; I still feel that the alternate method, which requires the the amortization of patents, IP, and trade secrets, copyrights and such like over 30 years is simply a boondoggle and reflexive reach for the accountancy industry. Since a lot of tech is obsolete 9 months after it is created, it is the height of absurdity to have to spend pointless hours accounting for it 29.333 years after obsolescence. But then again, the accounting industry is culpable for the swiss-cheese we call the IRS tax code as well. So it stands to reason that they'd want to create as Kafkesque a structure as possible.