SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Crazy Fools Chasing Crazy CyberNews -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ms.smartest.person who wrote (847)12/6/2001 2:26:10 PM
From: ms.smartest.person  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5140
 
When Pro Forma Is Bad Form
By Joanna Glasner

2:00 a.m. Dec. 6, 2001 PST

You'd think unprofitable Internet companies have had enough to worry about this year, what with investors showing absolutely no interest in buying their stocks.

But now, U.S. securities regulators are giving them something extra to fret about: getting hit with a fraud charge for trying to make dismal returns look better than they really are.

As part of efforts to improve the clarity of information given to investors, the Securities and Exchange Commission warned this week that it will crack down on companies that use creative accounting methods to pump up poor earnings results.

In particular, the commission said it will focus on abuse of a popular form of financial reporting known as "pro forma" accounting, which allows companies to exclude certain expenses and gains from their earnings results. The SEC said the method "may not convey a true and accurate picture of a company's financial well-being."

Experts say the practice is especially common among Internet firms, which began issuing earnings press releases with pro forma numbers en masse during the stock market boom of the late 1990s. The list of new-economy companies using pro forma figures includes such prominent firms as Yahoo (YHOO), AOL Time Warner (AOL), CNET (CNET) and JDS Uniphase (JDSU).

Unprofitable firms are particularly avid users of pro forma numbers, said Brett Trueman, professor of accounting at the University of California at Berkeley's Haas School of Business.

"I can't say for sure why, but I can take a guess: They're losing big time, and they want to give investors the impression that the losses are not as great as they appear," he said.

Trueman said savvy investors tend to know that companies may have self-serving interests in mind when they release pro forma numbers. Experienced traders often put greater credence in numbers compiled according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), which firms are required to release alongside any pro forma numbers.

A mounting concern, however, is the fact that many companies rely almost solely on pro forma numbers in projections for future performance.

Perhaps the best-known proponent of pro forma is the perennially unprofitable Amazon.com, which has a history of guiding investor expectations using an accounting system that excludes charges for stock compensation, restructuring or the declining value of past acquisitions.

Invariably, the pro forma numbers are better than the GAAP ones. In its most recent quarter, for example, Amazon (AMZN) reported a pro forma loss of $58 million. When measured according to GAAP, Amazon's net loss nearly tripled to $170 million.

Things are apt to get even stranger in the last quarter of the year, when Amazon said it plans to deliver its first-ever pro forma operating profit. By regular accounting standards, the company will still be losing money.

Those results might not sit too well with the folks at the SEC, however.

In its statements this week, the SEC noted that although there's nothing inherently illegal about providing pro forma numbers, figures should not be presented in a deliberately misleading manner. Regulators may have been talking directly to Amazon in one paragraph of their warning, which said:

"Investors are likely to be deceived if a company uses a pro forma presentation to recast a loss as if it were a profit."

Neither Amazon nor AOL Time Warner returned phone calls inquiring if they planned to make changes to their pro forma accounting methods in light of the SEC's recent statements.

According to Trueman, few members of the financial community would advocate getting rid of pro forma numbers altogether.

Even the SEC said that pro forma numbers, when used appropriately, can provide investors with a great deal of useful information that might not be included with GAAP results. When presented correctly, pro forma numbers can offer insights into the performance of the core business, by excluding one-time events that can skew quarterly results.

Rather than ditching pro forma, industry groups like Financial Executives International and the National Investor Relations Institute say a better plan is to set uniform guidelines for how to present the numbers. They have issued a set of recommendations, such as making sure companies don't arbitrarily change what's included in pro forma results from quarter to quarter.

Certainly some consistency would make it easier for folks who try to track this stuff, said Joe Cooper, research analyst at First Call, which compiles analyst projections of earnings.

The boom in pro forma reporting has created quite a bit of extra work for First Call, Cooper said, because it has to figure out which companies and analysts are using pro forma numbers and how they're using them.

But the extra work of compiling pro forma numbers doesn't necessarily result in greater financial transparency for investors, Cooper said.

"In days past, before it was abused, it was a way to give an honest apples-to-apples comparison," he said. "Now, it is being used as a way to continually put their company in a good light."


wired.com



To: ms.smartest.person who wrote (847)12/6/2001 2:34:04 PM
From: ms.smartest.person  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5140
 
Irish Betting on Biotech
By Daithí Ó hAnluain
2:00 a.m. Dec. 5, 2001 PST

CORK, Ireland -- The Celtic Tiger, envied for its rapid industrial success in the 1990s, is employing the same formula to stimulate biotech here.

Low corporation taxes, a highly skilled work force and pure, blind eagerness attracted U.S. technology companies in droves for the last 10 years.

The upshot was that Ireland became the world's largest exporter of software. Ireland exports more software than the United States because it's the European and Middle East export node for many U.S. companies. For instance, Microsoft and IBM have their European operations based here. Meanwhile, homegrown firms such as Iona, Baltimore, Smartforce, Parthus and Trintech have become international successes.

Now Ireland is looking to biotech as another major plank in the country’s platform to launch its future prosperity.


"Biotech in Ireland is at the stage where IT was 10 years ago," says Dr. Kevin Donnelly, research innovation fund manager at Enterprise Ireland, an agency to promote indigenous entrepreneurs.

It's unsurprising that Ireland has locked onto this emerging sector.

Health is a guaranteed market for the future, says Donnelly. "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. People will always get sick. We cured TB in the '40s, but the hospitals didn't close. You can guarantee that in a thousand year's time people will want to live six weeks longer than they are living at the moment. Healthcare will always be a major industry." And biotech is set to become a major growth area in medicine.

He applies the same rationale to information communications technology (ICT): "What are the ideas that have always been around? Well, writing was one of the earliest technologies to develop and we're still perfecting it. So, communication has always been there and it will be there in the future as well."

On this logic the oldest and second oldest professions in the world -- war and sex -- will probably thrive in 100 years time, too, and looking at the major applications of technology today, it's difficult to fault Donnelly's reasoning.

Ireland's success in IT is well known, but its thriving pharma sector is less famous.

The country is, with Puerto Rico and Singapore, one of the top three destinations for pharmaceuticals internationally because of its low 10 percent corporation tax. Nine of the top 10 pharma companies in the world have operations in Ireland. Over 120 overseas companies employ 17,000 people and export US$18 billion annually. This represents over 25 percent of total exports and makes Ireland one of the largest exporters of pharmaceuticals and fine chemicals in the world.

Wyeth Medica, owned by American Home Products Corporation, is currently building the world's largest bio-pharmaceutical campus on a 90-acre site here. After it opens in 2005, it will employ 1,300 people at full production -– bringing the total AHPC workforce in Ireland to 3,000.

Now the government has created Science Foundation Ireland with a $798 million fund specifically for biotechnology and ICT. Over the next five years, the fund intends to enable third-level institutions to recruit and retain scholars capable of developing internationally significant research programs.

An American chemist, Dr. William Harris, founding president of Columbia University's Biosphere 2 Center, and former director for mathematical and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation in the United States, will head up the SFI.

So far the foundation has allotted $62 million to fund 10 principal investigators with a budget of $1.43 million a year to build research teams, of up to 12, focused on specific areas of Biotech or ICT ranging from genome research to photonics.

Projects can come from anywhere in the world but the research must be carried out in Ireland. After a recent call the foundation received 34 proposals costing $113 million from Ireland, the U.K., Canada, the United States and Japan. Those proposals are currently under review. The SFI is set to launch another call with a deadline early next year.

The goal of all this effort is both to help develop an international reputation for Ireland and, ultimately, create the expertise to boost the indigenous biotech sector to complement the international expertise here.

Irish indigenous biotech research has already thrown up a number of promising devices. A cancer detection device the size of a microchip is in the development stage here. Meanwhile a DNA-based system for tracking meat from the field where it was raised to the consumer's table is producing a profit for its inventors. In July, a team from National University of Ireland, Galway, licensed a DNA test to Roche Diagnostic.

The deal pulled in an up-front payment of $1.57 million and could generate up to $2.85 million a year in royalties. The test allows for the rapid testing of septicemia and meningitis, and it also has application in respiratory and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). The technology provides results in a matter of hours instead of days with current methods. Its developers believe that could drop to minutes in three or four years.

"Today, maybe the world knows Irish inventiveness best through its artists and writers," Harris wrote in a recent article. "Tomorrow, they will know why our scientists deserve their respect and appreciation just as well."

wired.com