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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: genedabber who wrote (79298)	7/28/2008 4:52:23 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 197272

they decided to "smooth" the incorporation of the lump sum by amortizing it over the life of the Agreements The accounting standards now REQUIRE that the licensing fee be amortized over the entire life of the license. This means that an up front, lump sum payment is actually spread over several years, even though the cash is already in the bank. Here's one possible scenario that might work, but since I'm not familiar with accounting practice in this area, it's only a guess: One might argue that the lump sum payment in the agreement INCLUDES previously owed royalties. Even though the royalties could be credited to the next quarter, it might be argued that the back royalties were all part of the lump sum agreed to in the settlement. In this scenario, the ENTIRE LUMP SUM could be amortized over 15 years. This would have the effect of REDUCING the amount of previously owed royalties and reducing the impact on estimated eps of $0.07 - $0.13. Just a guess, not backed by any knowledge of the legalities or accounting principles involved. Art

To: genedabber who wrote (79298)	7/28/2008 7:44:30 PM
From: quartersawyer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197272

My guess is that "one time payment" included both lump sum for the License Agreement but also the owed Royalties since May 2007. The current and arrears in royalties since May 2007 will have to be accounted for in income in this fiscal year. Ok. But... Ehud Goldblum, desperate to turn a nut to hold onto into any available small crack, asked : "... that .07 to .13 that we are adding to fiscal year '08, therefore includes some restatement of Q1 to Q3, some bumping up of those quarters, so that will be in Q4.... I assume that the .07 to .13 also includes some amount of the one time payment and even though it'll be amortized, we assume that more of it ends up in '08 than ends up in future years, or are you assuming that it all gets amortized evenly?" Bill: "... yes you are correct that .07 to .13 estimate for the 4th quarter includes a catch up so to speak from amounts owed in the past that now as a result of this settlement agreement, we expect it will be what we record in the fourth quarter. That 4th quarter amount at this point I expect will all be an amortization of the upfront payment, a partial amortization of the upfront payment, and as Steve said it is a very substantial upfront payment, much more than what has been owed for the past and a portion of it is a payment for the future. Okay?" So, as muddy as that is, your proposal that the "one time payment" included both lump sum for the License Agreement but also the owed Royalties since May 2007. The current and arrears in royalties since May 2007 will have to be accounted for in income in this fiscal year is also unclear to me. I just don't see much if any of it showing up in Q4 income guidance, and neither do Ehud or Bill. I'm with Ehud. "That's just [a measly dime, man. my paraphrase]. I have to understand how the mechanics of that work", Ehud begged. I remember the change to amortizing license fees. I've never seen amortization of royalties payable or paid. But I haven't read all these posts yet. Am I oblivious to something obvious? I think we all want to see it in the share price, but that does not equate to instantaneous EPS "Instantaneous EPS" sounds pretty good to me, something an investor can sink his teeth into. I'm sure something could be worked out in the tax department back to '07. There's nothing wrong or dumb about putting it where it belongs.