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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (48728)	7/23/2001 2:38:57 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: C'mon Dan3 - 'splain that one ! When you understand how NT reported a loss of $19 Billion from one quarter to the next, you'll understand what it means to load up on "goodwill" and not take sufficient depreciation each quarter. What's an older FAB worth? What did it cost to sit on such an asset for a year? These are judgements that not easy to make - and the true value can bounce around quite a bit, whatever the capability or motivation of the auditor.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (48728)	7/23/2001 9:09:03 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

>So our litlle Dan3 is a lot smarter than Intel's accountants and auditors? Maybe you can explain why Intel's outside independent auditors - Ernst & Young - let Intel get away with falsifying their depreciation YEAR AFTER YEAR - whereas AMD's outside independent auditors - THE VERY SAME Ernst & Young - hold AMD to a much more rigorous depreciation schedule?< This is one case where Dan3 may be right. If a company like AMD depreciates their plant over 5 years, this may be accounting that reflects reality because AMD actually uses their plants for more than 5 years. If a company like Intel depreciates their plant using this same 5 year rate they may not be depreciating their plant fast enough if they replace their plants in two or three years.