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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (47628)	10/7/2001 1:23:51 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 54805

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't QCOM recognize sales (and perhaps profits) from its "sales" to Globalstar? and then these funds were not actually received and had to be written off? i thought there was something like that in addition to the loan-related writeoffs. You are absolutely correct about this point. However, it has stopped recognizing any Globalstar $ until it actually comes in. This has been the case for some time now. My point is that the WSJ analysis is facile because it is not fair to apply things like the almost $600m Globalstar asset-impairment (investment) write-off to earnings in the mid-90s, when the Q was a baby in telecom. Applying that kind of write-off to it has the effect of increasing the percentage of loss unfairly. The Q doesn't do it by restating earnings and I doubt that there is any compelling legal or accounting reason why it should. Thanks for pointing out that the WSJ article was dated July 13.