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 : INPR - Inprise to Borland (BORL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shane forbes who wrote (1403)	10/22/1998 9:30:00 AM
From: shane forbes	Respond to of 5102

SOP 97-2 requirements (Cliff notes version from zdnet) 1) Persuasive evidence of a sale must exist 2) Delivery must have occurred 3) Fees for elements of a package deal must be specified 4) Collection of payments must be probable --- Unlike say Informix where (1) was questionable big-time; unlike say Baan where (3) I believe was also questionable, Inprise may have had to defer the non-refundable fees (some part of the 2m presumably) I believe because of (2). I think even though up-front non-refundable fees, to me at least, seems like something you could book now (since it is money in the bank for the deal in question), maybe the fact that delivery has not taken place means it has to be deferred. Certainly it is NOT (1), (3) or (4) - don't ask me how I know - let's just say a little nefarious birdie told me so. --- Finally one more and I am outta here for a long while: On the stock buyback 1.6m at $6.44 is quite good. However this is $10 million smackers out of the kitty. I think it is prudent to not burn too much cash indisriminately until the other 15m from Starfish arrives. Then buy about 1-2m. or so over the next month as the price warrants. And those convertible holders are lucky! --- Shane (mid 40s in late 2001/early 2002)

To: shane forbes who wrote (1403)	10/22/1998 10:11:00 AM
From: R. Martenson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

Outstanding analysis, just jumped in, this is a great opportunity over the next month to accumulate. Time to build a base for the January effect and end of year tax sellers. Along with the obvious trend change in Inprise, I am back on board. Good job, shane, thanks for the thoughtfull look.

To: shane forbes who wrote (1403)	10/22/1998 10:38:00 AM
From: Al Shelinsky	Respond to of 5102

Could you please post the conference call phone number? Thanks. Al

To: shane forbes who wrote (1403)	10/22/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: R.S. Blum	Respond to of 5102

He did not take me up on that bet! Although I think I offered the bet and you didn't take me up, I will admit I'm damn glad you didn't! Now, the next time the Mr. Bigshot waltz's over, I will guarantee that MY Sam Adams will not flow freely! It's gonna be BYO until he makes this one up... Hmmm, maybe a free digital StarTac might do the trick <g> Take care, -Scott

To: shane forbes who wrote (1403)	10/22/1998 6:15:00 PM
From: Peter Shenderov	Respond to of 5102

Thank you Shane. I fully agree with you. INPR is growing. Next quarter will be a killer. Peter.

To: shane forbes who wrote (1403)	10/22/1998 7:16:00 PM
From: David Miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

Shane, your enthusiasm as usual does you great credit, but a little more objectivity (and fact-checking) may help you from time to time. am I the only one who realizes that the increase in deferred revenues from a run-rate of 0.6m to a run-rate of 2.0m is a significant accomplishment Deferred revenues come from several sources, but have a major characteristic - they are a balance sheet liability that, by definition, has to be offset by a balance sheet asset. Usually this is cash - a customer has paid for a product or service, but has not received all the associated value. Commonly, this is "maintenance revenue", paid annually in advance, but released proportionately into the P&L in future quarters, or project services revenue where the work has not been completed. Next most common is licensing agreements that span quarters - or years - when the same rules apply. On the evidence, it would seem that the bulk of the addition to deferred revenues comes from licensing deals with other software companies - nothing wrong with that, Visigenic began life exactly in this space. It is, however, slightly at odds with the Inprise "enterprise" thrust, since it is one stage removed from a direct customer transaction. If you check your history, you will find that Visigenic themselves were trying to transition themselves out of reliance on this form of business at the time they were acquired. Does anyone perhaps think that the lack of growth in Japan just could have been caused by the fact that the company has not yet implemented the direct sales force there and that the company there is still the Old Development Window Tools Borland and not the new Enterprise Company Inprise. Few, I believe, would think this. Check inprise.com I am always amazed at how short-sighted the market can be. Shane, be careful. david