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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (11619)	11/6/2002 6:46:16 PM
From: bramble88	Respond to of 57110

Hmm ..I suppose if it is not hidden it may not be illegal, but it is certainly not an appropriate way to match revenues and costs. And as you say, for a public company which is traded based on their earnings and moreover based on growth in this case, it IS deceptive. I have admitedly not been scrutinizing Cisco's earnings releases and conference calls or following discussion about Cisco and thus am ignorant of the details, but if as you say, bid_buster, in your post, it is a known practice -it is still not OK.. (and I know you are not trying to say it is :) ).

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (11619)	11/6/2002 6:54:48 PM
From: stomper	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57110

That was the point though. I think it was four, maybe six quarters ago when they took a write down on billions in unsold inventory and wrote it off as "unsaleable", yet did not liquidate it, but instead kept it in their own warehouses. Chamber's was specifically asked if it would be resold later (else they wouldn't get the full write-off) and he assured everyone in multiple press outlets that it wouldn't be. Uh, yah. -dave