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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (167095)	6/25/2002 7:08:25 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

hope Intels books aren't suspect. Why would they be? I've heard the "Intel's cooking the books" insinuations from the AMD-cheerleading crowd for years now. The reality is Intel tends to be one of the most fiscally conservative companies out there.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (167095)	6/25/2002 7:23:50 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Respond to of 186894

At this point just about every major corporations books are suspect in some way. It has become clear to the public that neither management nor the auditors have been responsible to shareholders. Most have definitely not committed fraud, but all are suspect. You're presumed guilty unless you repeatedly prove yourself innocent through your detailed disclosures. While I doubt anybody will find anything at Intel, I also suspect that they'll find themselves being asked to disclose more information and greater details than they have in the past, particularly with regard to capital expenditures and amortization of capital. mg

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (167095)	6/25/2002 7:41:19 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

This shows you how totally friggin stupid, 'alledged" political corruption can get and people who are swayed by every opinion the run accross. RATHER THAN MAKE AA AND EVERY OTHER ACCOUNTING FIRM RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS you pass a law that says that they are not responsible to the public. NOW, what if I told you that WCOM committed NO fraud, that this is just a smokescreen, that I could tell from looking a wcoms balance sheet in two seconds that they were capitalizing expenses of acquisitions. That this same Government agency Accused MS of expensing when they should be capitalizing. Let me tell you that the company determines whether to capitalize or expense an item and it depends on the situation. There is no one size fits all rule. Don't fall for this bullshit, the cause is taking political contributions and passing a law that said the certified public accountants weren't liable to the public. The only rule is disclosure of treatment of items of income and campaign contributions. HAVE YOU EVERY HEARD OF THE POOLING OF INTERESTS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING? I guarantee this was the law. A smokescreen is where you generate a lot of smoke to hide the escape route. You are swaying in the wind like your opinions on Intel processors.