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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TSIS: WHAT IS GOING ON? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gregor who wrote (5760)	4/9/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: BarbaraT	Respond to of 6931

Sorry, have no answers there.

To: gregor who wrote (5760)	4/9/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: John S. Baker	Respond to of 6931

In general, IPO's have at least three years of audited results before they go public. This is why I recommend to all the startups I counsel that they begin acting like a real company as soon as possible -- diverse BoD, audited financials, streamlined equity structure, etc. After all, there always is the chance that they will be successful and will make it into the bigtime. Why not start out in that direction from the beginning. (For some early-stage, privately-funded startups, the actual expense of an audit would clobber them. In these cases, I recommend at least that they keep their records in an auditable form, so that when the time comes to go back two or three years for an after-the-fact audit, it is reasonably inexpensive to do so.) JSb.

To: gregor who wrote (5760)	4/9/1999 12:19:00 PM
From: jmt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6931

Why does the SEC require two years of audited results for fully reporting status; what about an IPO, are not many of them began as fully reporting? Two years of audited financials are required for a couple of reasons. First, financial information is less valuable without comparability. If companies just filed one year, one showed a loss, and the other a profit, which would you buy? Now lets add the prior year for both companies. The one with a loss shows revenues have doubled as compared to the prior year, and the loss was significantly smaller. The profitable company shows declining year over year revenues, increasing expenses and a much smaller profit than the prior year. Now which company would you buy? Both years need to be audited to ensure the accounting is consistant between the two comparable periods. Concerning IPO's, what are the options? jmt