To: Uncle Frank who wrote (5777 ) 4/19/2002 8:15:01 AM From: chojiro Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 6974 As far as I recall, Tom's guidance has been consistently negatively biased since last year. I don't know if this would be considered optimistic or not, and surely if there was any buzz about a recovery it was most likely perpetrated by analysts. However, I can see where some would take the below quote to mean the economy is turning, at least for SEBL. Can you provide some links to where Tom was "consistently negatively biased"? 1/23/02 "What we're seeing is a return to more normal business processes and buying behavior," CEO Thomas Siebel said during a conference call. "We're quite optimistic about 2002 based on what we're seeing." http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/software/10007298.html And look at all these upgrades the next day Siebel Systems SEBL ABN AMRO from Add to Buy History, News Wachovia Sec from Buy to Strong Buy Wedbush Morgan from Hold to Buy JP Morgan from LT Buy to Buy SunTrust Rbsn Humphrey from Outperform to Buy First Analysis Sec from Neutral to Accumulate ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On an aside note, I find it appalling that SEBL insiders have been exercising options under a buck and turning around and selling them the very same day. And Tom himself doing it with over 1 million shares on 1/28/02(right after the above quote) Remember too, SEBL doesn't add these shares to their balance sheet. So while investors may not be aware of it, insiders have been raping their stock at the expense of J6P. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander? To put it mildly, Siebel took exception with one of his rivals making revenue from what under most circumstances would be a product development expense. marketwatch.com Take a look at Siebel Systems (SEBL: news, chart, profile), which grew earnings an average of 107 percent in the past five years, including 2001. Factoring out that year, Siebel saw earnings jump 128 percent annually from 1996 to 2000. Yet a look at Siebel's 10K shows that the company reported net income of $123 million in 2000, but accounting for stock options it lost $122.5 million. It reported $56.5 million in net income in 1999, but lost $21.7 million if the company had elected to account for its employee stock-based compensation plans. Obviously, if we accounted for employee compensation for all these companies -- profits would have been far less than reported. marketwatch.com Of course we have already determined that the markets are not always rational so I figure it will take a while yet for all this to come out in the wash, but make no mistake about it, it will be resolved.