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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (64792)	9/20/2003 7:38:09 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 77400

I don't understand the waffling here Lizzie, Unprofitable companies IPO all the time, and have done so since the dawn of the secondary market. They will continue to do so. Each case is judged on its merit at the time and not by some black-and-white sense of rules. The world is not digital, it is analog. There is no requirement that public companies are profitable at all times. It is you who is linking the requirement of profitability with IPO. Furthermore a change in ACCOUNTING will not change how profitable a company is. It just changes how profitable a company looks. These are different things. There is no waffling here, just an appreciation of facts. How things look and how things are... those are two different things. The IPO requirements are based on how things are, not how they look. Or, at least they should be. If High Tech IPOs rely on tricking people into believing that what they are buying is better than what they are really buying, then what you are saying is that Silicon Valley is perpetuating a fraud on the investing public. Which I don't think you intend at all. On the flip side, if there is no fraud being perpetuated, that is, if people can see the reality despite the accounting, then a change in the accounting will have no effect. The waffling here is by the folks who claim there is no basis for an accounting change and yet who claim that a change would be disruptive.... hmmmm...