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 : Coyote Network Systems (CYOE), Mixing It Up, IP and ATM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Q. who wrote (85)	12/14/1998 7:52:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 360

Hi John, and All, JG, you note: >>BTW, it is curious that CYOE says today. it wants the SEC to investigate trading in its stock. << I think that this is what you are referring to, from today's Fool: >>"Telecom equipment and long-distance services provider Coyote Network Systems (Nasdaq: CYOE) howled at TheStreet.com today, advancing $1 5/16 to $7 7/8 after it said it asked the SEC to investigate recent heavy trading activity in its stock driven in large part by a series of stories written by the TheStreet.com website raising questions about its business. It also invited TheStreet.com honcho J. J. Cramer to visit the company and meet with top executives. Coyote also named vice president and controller Brian Robson its executive vice president and CFO, replacing Edward Beeman, who left the company." << All, And the stock was up today. Amazing. Has everyone here reached pretty much the same conclusions? When I started this thread I saw some potentially leading-edge stuff emerging, especially in the VoIP sector, from what I read in their PRs, which I mentally pieced together with some previous experiences I had with the SATTEL unit of Diana last year, during some product evals. I saw some potential for a turnaround of intentions, and a kind of rebirth here. Whether or not that was blindness or naivete on my part, preferring to believe some things which I thought logically should have been being offered (heck, maybe they took my recommendations after all, now that I think of it) will only be revealed with time. But it doesn't look very good for them from this vantage point at this time. As for the TSC report, I don't always believe everything I read from bulletin board reviews, banter-filled threads, and the news services of this emerging genre, but this one is getting pretty hard to ignore. I think that there are still some revelations to be made here, however, and we shall see what we shall see when the Sun comes out to shine. --- As for financing deals in this sector being masked by "sales," and vice versa, it never ceases to amaze me lately [actually for the past several years] how even some much larger companies [long-established and venerable ones, to boot] can pull off revenue claims when they are in fact simply lending their customers the money, in effect, to allow them to enter into a given field with their goods. Doing this allows them to increase their market penetration stats quickly, thus bumping their stocks, fend off the competition, while chalking up "sales" totes at the same time, to bolster their quarterly positions. I'm not saying that this is what took place here, exactly, indeed I don't know what took place here, exactly, but only that similar tactics of this nature are widespread and prevalent today. I'll wait to see what comes out in the wash. Best Regards to All, Frank Coluccio

To: Q. who wrote (85)	12/14/1998 8:33:00 PM
From: NYBellBoy	Respond to of 360

John G - you are correct: Cost of warrants should be added to the Cost of Sales or a reduction from the Sales Price. The first is the preferable method. They give them warrants because they issued a boatload of them and as the price of the stock rises, so does the Fair Market Value of the warrants. Have all the costs been accounted for in accordance with GAAP? That is the question. I have seen too many marketing types make all kinds of concessions to get their first sale and not only is there not a profit, but a negative gross margin on the sale before SG&A. They probably should eliminate 20% of the profit on the sale, since they have 20% ownership of Cresent if they have effective control of Cresent. :) BellBoy