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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (88461)	1/13/2001 5:35:44 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 132070

M, My best guess is that MBNA simply screwed up. They allegedly gave out data to a few pet analysts, which is the way the old scam used to work. The rules have been changed and now they are saying nobody got the real numbers so they won't get heat from the SEC. Here is what we know for certain: if a co. can report its eps in either of two different formats, the scamsters will always choose the one that makes them look best. Fairly real income can be found on the 10Qs and 10Ks while the most real income is reported on the IRS returns. Most investors never look at either. Analysts are supposed to comb all of these numbers and, if a co. uses a complicated accounting system, receive guidance from the firm. It looks like the quarter was really worse than reported to shareholders and MBNA is reluctant to let analysts in on the fact. Why? Stock price based options and bonuses. It helps put the big lie to the idea that shareholders really own a co. About the same way we all hold the deed on The White House. De jure but not de facto. If they violated the SEC rule, they will get yelled at but good. However, I doubt if they have anything to fear from the wimps known as shareholders and even less from the Finlandacized cheerleaders who dare to call themselves analysts. Notice that the guys who are complaining are from distinctively non-premier firms.

To: mishedlo who wrote (88461)	1/13/2001 5:36:28 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 132070

M, My best guess is that MBNA simply screwed up while trying to pull the tech co. trick of fluffing eps that don't exist. They allegedly gave out data to a few pet analysts, which is the way the old scam used to work. The rules have been changed and now they are saying nobody got the real numbers so they won't get heat from the SEC. Here is what we know for certain: if a co. can report its eps in either of two different formats, the scamsters will always choose the one that makes them look best. Fairly real income can be found on the 10Qs and 10Ks while the most real income is reported on the IRS returns. Most investors never look at either. Analysts are supposed to comb all of these numbers and, if a co. uses a complicated accounting system, receive guidance from the firm. As we learned nearly 2 years ago in The New York Times article, "Oh, Those Pesky Little Financial Details," Jan 31, 1999, page 1, Section 3, some extremely famous analysts don't even look at the numbers that are available. Now it turns out that those who want to look at such numbers expect the cos. to break them down for them. It appears that the quarter for MBNA was really worse than reported to shareholders and MBNA is reluctant to let analysts in on the fact. Why? Stock price based options and bonuses. It helps put the big lie to the idea that shareholders really own a co. About the same way we all hold the deed on The White House. De jure but not de facto. If they violated the SEC rule, they will get yelled at but good. Some guy the firm doesn't like anyway might even get fired, saving the firm his severance package. However, I doubt if they have anything to fear from the wimps known as shareholders and even less from the Finlandacized cheerleaders who dare to call themselves analysts. Notice that the guys who are complaining are from distinctively non-premier firms.