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: Mike Buckley who wrote (48744)	11/9/2001 10:44:15 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

(or Slacker if you're still following this thread), I couldnt stop reading this thread....watching UF get you to do his dirty work is worth the price of admission all by itself. The various bits and pieces of knowledge are a bonus.... The more Qualcomm continues to change the way they account for stuff, the harder it becomes to make year-over-year comparisons. I would assume that they are going to provide restated earnings history for the various divisions. As far as I can tell, the change is just a different choice the company is making as to how it defines pro forma, which in my mind doesn't "clean up" anything. I am definitely not an expert on this stuff but my take is that those who take issue with pro-forma earnings are going to have their poster child in Qualcomm. The two numbers are never going to match. However, I am glad that they standardized the accounting. Even worse than excluding stuff that they should be including is being able to pick and choose what should be included. I have never liked the amount of discretion that Qualcomm has had in making earnings. The change in royalty accounting is also going to lessen their ability to manage their quarters. Previously, if they needed extra revenue to make the quarter, they could have rushed royalty licenses to completion. This would no longer have much of an effect. Slacker