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: Knighty Tin who wrote (178153)	7/8/2002 4:31:46 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Thank you. I am now enlightened. and, grateful for the lesson! nudder two bits going into your credit entries. <g> J

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (178153)	7/8/2002 4:36:59 PM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

KT: From what I've read this seems to be much ado about nothing although the press, politicians and trial lawyers will make it into a big issue. In a way its similar to the reinsurance industry. Should they report their premiums net the sales commissions the brokers withhold? In this medco thing its a small market (# of companies) so its probably an issue never addressed by AICPA on the "right" accounting method. Once all is said and done I'd expect the standard to be the medco standard (i.e. report revenues on a gross not net basis). FASB normally wouldn't address it since its already in existing standards. This was never a material issue until the explosive growth in drug price inflation and corresponding establishment and increase in co payments. This is all in the last 10 years.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (178153)	7/8/2002 5:10:54 PM
From: reaper	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 436258

<<If you want to tout your stock, you keep your profit margins artificially high by not recognizing the co-pay. If you want to impress potential and current clients with how much you provide them and the liability you take off their books, you recognize the revenues and the liabilities. So, if Merck did the wrong thing, it was in providing too nice a picture to clients, not to investors. >> If you want to tout your stock, impress investors with the large amount of revenue you are generating. I don't think investors care about margins per se. I mean heck, Myth wants to buy Ford, AT&T and Rite Aid <g> So I am guessing that you think all these bogus transactions by the energy traders are much ado about nothing as well? I THINK you are right, that Merck would be suffering from a "scandal" under either scenario. That said, I have a very special place for companies that recognize revenue aggressively, and that place ain't my long portfolio. With 2000 stocks to choose from I'll just avoid this one for now; you are obviously MUCH more on top of the situation than me. btw, that was an honest question about Merck's capex. what the heck do they spend $2.7 billion a year on, and why is it so much higher than what PFE spends? Cheers