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 : Corel Corp. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Bean who wrote (4048)	12/22/1997 3:20:00 PM
From: Joe Antol	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9798

Yes. <G>.

To: Mr. Bean who wrote (4048)	12/22/1997 3:29:00 PM
From: Gnarly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9798

I may buy back in....but I'm out until the 15th for tax purposes. Corel is operationally profitable. I has agreements with distributors to "rotate stock" (i.e rotate it back to Ottawa) so this is part of a clearing of old inventory. The only card in this that REALLY concerns me is the resignation of their CFO....he OBVIOUSLY was in the know...and I doubt he would quit when his stock options were about to become valuble. Gnarly

To: Mr. Bean who wrote (4048)	12/22/1997 11:16:00 PM
From: Leo Mitkievicz	Respond to of 9798

Bean They're not gonna restate the numbers. That's what the current finagling is about. That's why the earnings are "pro forma" so low. They can't give you the real numbers without self-incrimination and lawsuits so all is painted as excessive inventory in the channel. <we're so sorry. our products just aren't selling. our historical run rates made us think we were on target. etc etc blah blah blah.> In short they are trying to cover their asses while digging out from inside a cesspool. So take some lessons. This is how you do it. You're the accountant. You can almost pro-rate the losses going back, IMO, to the WP aquisition to see how extensive the fiscal deception has been. I agree completely that most of the damage was done before Q3 and Q4 of '97. Leo

To: Mr. Bean who wrote (4048)	12/23/1997 2:48:00 AM
From: Tommy D	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9798

I think everyone is missing the point on the latest news release. I previously posted that the operating loss is projected to $5 million for the 4th quarter. The other $90 million are not ordinary operating expenses. I think the company is clearing the decks to go into 1998 with all the crap behind them and to be in a position to show a profit as there will be less depreciation/amortization expense or other capitalized expenses(perhaps certain R&D expenditures) to write off in 1998. You have questioned how the cash could go up with a loss. Anumber of possibilities exist; increasing payables or reducing receivables are a possibility but more likely it relates to reduced expenditures that previously were capitalized (such as capitalized R&D expenditures) or depreciation/amortization for the quarter exceeded the $5 million operating loss. As I read it the $90 million of writeoffs were not cash writeoffs but rather adjustments to book value. I did not have the quarterly financials available but the 1996 financial statements showed depreciation/amortization expense of $56 million or about $14 million per quarter. Therefore, depending upon the capital expenditures and the source of funding for the capital expenditures, there is a reasonable possibility the operating loss actually generated positive cash flow as a result of reducing capital costs or matching capital costs with long term borrowing. Just a thought. Clearing the books and taking the one time write-offs to start off fresh in 1998 may frustrate many of the ex-shareholders but for us remaining shareholders, it could result in a much better 1998 if they can show some ability to turn things around as the earnings per share will be higher as a result of the writeoffs this year. I have posted before and have been critical of the current management and have my reservations as to whether they can produce this time around but I do think that taking the hit in 1997 is the right thing to do. TommyD