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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Earlie who wrote (176272)	6/28/2002 3:47:04 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 436258

CFTC's out...cannibals...ERRRR, COMMERCIALS in NYC getting shorter silver and a little shorter the barbarous relic: cftc.gov Net-net, they also got a bit shorter both the SPOOS and the NDX, if the mini contracts are considered (interesting thing there is that that was as of the close on so-called "Crapitulation Wednesday"): cftc.gov

To: Earlie who wrote (176272)	6/28/2002 4:01:03 PM
From: reaper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<<At the end of the conversation, her only remark was "It is not my job to question audited financials".>> Then what was her job? To enjoy her surf-and-turf dinners w/ Bernie & Scott as Morton's. I find this response especially comical because most WCOM valuation was based on "EBITDA". EBITDA is NOT a GAAP concept, and in fact in every prospectus or other financial disclosure where EBITDA is presented for "informational purposes" you will see the accountants very specifically declare that EBITDA numbers were not prepared or endorsed by them. Nowhere ever in a US audited financial statement will you ever see the term "EBITDA". So for this woman who likely used EBITDA in a valuation framework to say she relied on AUDITED financials is just beyond comical. Frankly, some lawyer should be picking up on this and suing her to high heaven. Cheers