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 : International FiberCom, Inc. (NASDAQ- IFCI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (2095)	4/5/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: BobS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3541

chalu2, First of all, thank you for pointing out the FASB rules that increased the Net Income figure to a point where $.43 was justifiably calculated. I figured I was missing something, but couldn't find it. The way the company presented the information in the Income Statement is confusing.....and most people aren't going to read an entire 10K when doing due diligence. They'll look at the B/S & I/S - and in so doing will arrive at the same error I did. Second, I'd like to return the favor by pointing out some information that may not be completely understood. IFCI includes in their 3Q '98 earning the effect of their recent acquisitions. Not only does the 3Q earning reflect the effect of the acquisitions revenue & income in the months of 3Q, but if you look at the 9 month numbers released in the 3Q PR you will notice the company includes 1Q & 2Q revenue & income generated by the acquisitions (i.e. a restatement of earnings). This is where the $.12 4Q EPS comes from. Yahoo and other online information sources are not taking into account the restatement of 9 month earnings. This is also the crux of my issue why the company should have released 4Q numbers....in reality it is confusing to determine exactly what happened in the 4th quarter. And it is impossible to determine the exact (restated) I/S's for 1Q & 2Q; all we have been given is the (3Q) 9-month number.

To: chalu2 who wrote (2095)	4/5/1999 11:03:00 AM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3541

chalu, The appropriate response to those types of remarks is... "I know you are, but what am I?" or "I am rubber, you are glue..." Ausdauer

To: chalu2 who wrote (2095)	4/5/1999 7:29:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3541

chalu: Look at your own posts to Bob: <<You can get this, however, by subtracting the first 9 mos. of numbers from the full year numbers. I can't believe you don't know this, and that you haven't done this already if you would "really like" these numbers as much you say. >> << Not only are you picky, you are wrong. You did not thoroughly read the 10-K. ... the company's basis for stating its diluted EPS is there for all careful readers to see. I think you may owe this company an apology >> I don't think the tone there was very nice. Then you wrote <<I still don't understand the puzzlement over the 4Q results by people claiming expertise in this stock. If you knew the results for the first three quarters, then you know the results for the fourth quarter--it's really that simple. By the way, every analyst knows this number--it took me 3 seconds to find on Yahoo; the fourth quarter EPS was 19 cents per share, way higher than the analysts' consensus estimate of 11 cents per share. That's right, IFCI beat analysts' estimates. >> Which is hilarious. A classic really: You lecture us about how simple it is, and then you get it completely wrong. << petty name-calling is a sign of bad breeding >> I agree. But it wasn't petty. Your tone to Bob and the board was arrogant. You were ignorant of Q4 EPS (worse, you were off by a huge amount). Arrogant + ignorant = arrogant ignoramus. The name was fully deserved. Note the award was only for last night; plenty of time to redeem yourself.