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 : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5658)	5/16/1999 4:16:00 PM
From: gridiron 99	Respond to of 28311

Thanks for the link. The NY Times is trying to compete in the portal business. Could this be simply jealousy ?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5658)	5/16/1999 4:22:00 PM
From: Dick Enersen	Respond to of 28311

I think GNET got coverage in the piece because RCH was willing to talk to the reporter. As usual, I think he handled himself very well.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5658)	5/16/1999 5:39:00 PM
From: Technologyguy	Respond to of 28311

One of the reasons it singles out GNET is that the company is profitable. What the badly researched piece fails to mention is the one-time nature of the charges that led to the difference between the pro-forma profit and the GAAP loss.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5658)	5/16/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: B. A. Marlow	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 28311

What GNET's accounting "purports" to be is...USEFUL. In a word, "The New York Times" is, well, "naive." Firstly, "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)," established and maintained by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, are pretty much both "unisex" and "one-size-fits-all." While helpful for "value" stocks, rigid uniformity of presentation is not always meaningful for evaluation of "growth" stocks, and can be downright misleading for consideration of "New Economy" stocks. It's important to be clear that the accounting regimen is generally similar for all public firms. It's largely the presentation that varies and, even then, only to the extent it makes "sense." rutgers.edu In short, if investors insisted on evaluating the New Economy's leaders according to the financial metrics traditionally associated with "Rust Belt" participants, well, there simply wouldn't be a New Economy. Thus, many media companies, cable TV and paging firms, high-techs, and of course, the Internets, have adopted reporting formats with which analysts and investors are more comfortable. And even for these firms, if the full extent of one-time write-offs, amortization, depreciation, interest charges and other adjustments is useful to investors, *it's in there!. But what if one needs to know..."how is this company performing on a net operating basis, without non-recurring or distracting "clutter" (a so-called "pro forma" report)? The way GNET presents its results gets right to the point, hides nothing, and facilitates comparison with other firms in its sector. So, as is so often the case, "New York Times" is asking the wrong question. In the end, the issue is threefold: 1) Does GNET report its results reasonably, fairly and accurately? 2) Do GNET's auditors concur? 3) Does GNET present information in a way that's consistent with its sector's conventions and meaningful to investors? It's apparent that GNET's shareholders are at least satisfied, if not thrilled. Now, let's take this whole business a step further: The logical-but-absurd extension of the "Times'" accounting disconnect with the New Economy can be observed in the current makeup of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Let's take a look at its membership and ask ourselves whether it continues to present a "Generally Accepted Picture of America (GAPA)." If not, maybe we should encourage the "Times" to write about something useful: "retiring," say, Goodyear and Union Carbide and bringing in AOL and Yahoo!: Dow Jones Industrial Components* AA Alcoa Inc. ALD AlliedSignal Inc. AXP American Express Company BA Boeing Company C Citigroup Inc. CAT Caterpillar Inc. CHV Chevron Corporation DD E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company DIS Walt Disney Company EK Eastman Kodak Company GE General Electric Company GM General Motors Corporation GT Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company HWP Hewlett-Packard Company IBM International Business Machines Corporation IP International Paper Company JNJ Johnson & Johnson JPM J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated KO Coca-Cola Company MCD McDonald's Corporation MMM Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company MO Philip Morris Companies Inc. MRK Merck & Co., Inc. PG Procter & Gamble Company S Sears, Roebuck and Co. T AT&T Corp. UK Union Carbide Corporation UTX United Technologies Corporation WMT Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. XON Exxon Corporation In the end, no purpose is served by the "New York Times'" fatuous crusade into Internet financial journalism. This story goes nowhere. Worse, the "Gray Lady" of dead-tree publishing fails to disclose that the "Times" is itself a significant operator of, and investor in, media and Internet properties--including one high-flyer that can be reasonably considered a competitor of GNET and is certain (and similarly entitled) to use the very "New Economy" reporting methods the "Times" eschews: TheStreet.com. redherring.com As usual, folks, it's *Caveat Emptor*! BAM