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.

Pastimes : LIST of COs. WITH HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE ACCTG. PRACTICES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Lacelle who wrote (45)	8/2/2001 10:59:31 AM
From: Ben Wa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59

please provide evidence to back up your potentially libelous claim that HOMS will not produce their 10-q

To: John Lacelle who wrote (45)	8/3/2001 6:52:16 PM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59

<<They are lyin' like rugs about their "earnings".>> In what way? I agree that the "spin" of "pro-forma after tax earnings" is, at best, wishful thinking on their part, but if that is the only problem I see no lie. The "pro-forma after tax earnings" is the same as, "if we had not had these expenses that made us loose money, we would have made this much after taxes, which we did not really incur because we did not really have earnings." Now, if they had not reported the actual loss and had only reported the "pro-forma" earnings, then I would agree that there was some real hanky-panky. What did surprise me, a bit, was the comparison to analysts estimates. Since when do analysts estimate pro-forma after tax earnings when a company is really loosing money and not paying taxes? I understand it when there is a true one-time event that is not likely to be repeated, but it that really the case here? Is there some reason to think that the revenue numbers are misleading or false? That would really interest me. Troy