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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (211834)	11/16/2004 6:04:56 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573544

Imagine if AMD took billions to build Fab36 from someone with the promise that they would give back a larger amount of money later. Imagine also that the money currently coming in is more than is being spent in the current year on Fab construction. Now imagine that AMD refused to consider this money a debt and in fact called the difference between current spending and the money from this source a "surplus" or profit. How do you think investors and regulators would respond? Bringing it a step closer to the actual situation, imagine that AMD's pension plan didn't record the unfunded liability for employees who WORKED LAST YEAR but won't be drawing benefits for another 18 years. How would the investors and regulators respond? The answer is they would raise hell and insist that the unfunded liability be reported on AMD's balance sheet. The current law requires unfunded pension liabilities to be reported on the balance sheet of the parent; yet, you find no mention of the unfunded liability in any reporting of SSA. As you've pointed out, SSA reports on a cash method of accounting. Which FASB, and the APB before it, specifically ruled (with good reason) does not properly reflect income, loss, or financial condition accurately. It really is that simple, but this obfuscation allows the Dems to continue to demagogue the issue. If Americans could be made to understand that SSA is insolvent to the tune $10 Trillion, clearly, there would be a major outcry for radical change. Even intelligent people, like J Fowler, are able to look at the data yet not see the facts. What about the millions who haven't even the basic skills to comprehend such topics?