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.

Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Kenney who wrote (45991)	1/28/1998 1:26:00 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

>>>As for rebate accounting affecting this quarter's report, I think you must not have been paying attention to the quarterly reports for the past year. Rebates ended in Q1, and any fallout for earnings would have hit the bottom line a while ago.< Just like Allen. He continues to believe anything his friends at Iomega tell him. Revenues that were fudged upward in 1997 can be fudged back down the following year. It does not matter when the rebates ended as long as the books balance at the end of the year. Hail KE!!!<< Tim - A lot of bears have looked Iomega's reports very carefully, and I have not yet seen any of them, including you, providing any evidence of a rebate reserve problem hitting the bottom line. If you have any foundation for your claims, by all means present it. Simply saying that I am a fool for not just taking YOUR word on this doesn't prove your case. - Allen

To: Tim Kenney who wrote (45991)	1/28/1998 1:57:00 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

>>Revenues that were fudged upward in 1997 can be fudged back down the following year. It does not matter when the rebates ended as long as the books balance at the end of the year.<< Tim - One other question on this. Since the books do need to balance at the end of the year, wouldn't any huge rebate reserve problem have shown up at the end of '96, which is when, I believe, some people were predicting it would? Or are you saying that this enormous problem actually caused the company to miss estimates by a whole penny for Q4 '97? That would hardly be the significant impact you and others predicted so long ago. But the main reason I don't buy that story is that you really don't need to look that deep to see why the numbers were missed. They didn't ship products when they were supposed to, and revenue in the U.S. didn't increase enough. I certainly consider these to be serious problems, and ample explanation for a small shortfall. I expect to see evidence that these problems are being solved this quarter, or I'll want to know why. I don't see the need to look at some year-old non-problem for clues about current performance. - Allen