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 : QUANTUM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (7068)	1/17/1998 12:59:00 AM
From: Paul Mathis	Respond to of 9124

Where are the suits against the auditors in these cases???

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (7068)	1/17/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: Z Analyzer	Respond to of 9124

<<At what point does irrational management optimism (which they are all guilty of) end and intentional deception begin? Obviously I don't know. But these lawsuits keep them honest.>> Common sense should tell these boards that stock options should be awarded based on average annual prices and sales should be at average annual prices (and perhaps of very specific durations)to take away any incentive for management to temporarily pretty up the picture. It would also stop managements from becoming filthy rich based on nothing but normal market volitility irrespective of company perfrmance. (Options have become a lottey with very favorable odds of multi-million dollar payouts.) Lastly, it would put management in the same position as shareholders of not wanting to have a stock price which is grossly undervalued. Hard to believe that something so obvious has not been adopted by a single board of supposedly intelligent people out to provide proper incentives to management.

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (7068)	1/17/1998 7:38:00 PM
From: Stitch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9124

Lawrence; <<At what point does irrational management optimism (which they are all guilty of>> And maybe just as well. A pessimist has a performence impediment. <<But these lawsuits keep them honest.>> Well... at least keeps em on their toes. <G> Best, Stitch

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (7068)	1/19/1998 9:57:00 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9124

Lawrence, "Then they sock you with a huge "one-time" charge. Whose legitimacy, btw, you never took up my offer to debate." You are right--sorry. Have been both busy at work, and depressed about mostly pissing away huge paper profits, so my thinking about these things has been on "stuck" for a few weeks. Still no real time to think about it, but will try in the next week or two, and get back to you either here or on the more general DD thread. You are also right on your other point, but only to some extent--"There is tremendous leeway to fudge depreciation schedules, inventory valuation, and so on, making cash flow negative companies appear earnings positive" and "At what point does irrational management optimism (which they are all guilty of) end and intentional deception begin? Obviously I don't know. But these lawsuits keep them honest." However, no one--neither the analysts nor the companies nor even the people on these threads saw the depth of the current imbalance nor the speed with which it came on. Yeah, some people came in and said DDs are commodities, and there will be a glut sooner or later. And Alan Abelson, Michael Metz, Bob Prechter et al have said repeatedly that the market is overvalued and this bull will end sooner or later (they keep pushing the date out, like some eschatologists I have read). That doesn't count, at least not to me. No one saw when it would happen, or why. Granted no one can ever say exactly when or why. But that is part of the point about the lawsuits--to turn your question around, at what point do they become just a grab by the lawyers to get a few million dollars for themselves?