msn and what their reporting on merge under the detailed quotes and FYI section. One states that on sept.19 institutional ownership was at 99.7% and today they are stating that quarterly return on equity is up significantly. Could this be right?
In the cc, it was alluded to it being continued. The amount is yet to be determined. I would bet that was the minimum they had to list in that Q. But how much remains, is not determinable. This coming report, will shed light on this issue. And it will hold the key to the future. that is why this coming Q, is not considered the next quarter, as we are currently in THIS quarter. The NEXT Q after THIS Q is when the easy yoy comps beging as a result of the deferred rev. As we should have an idea how much is deferred Quarterly from THIS Q, and the LAST Q.
Damned semantics. Ya really gotta be careful, or aldente will be able to make an issue out of it.
Ok, Read the damned posts before you respond. I said when the news came out, I knew it was going down. Who didn't? You got lucky guessing it was going down is all. So I got the puts when it was in the 22 dollar range. I could have gotten them as high as in the 30 dollar range. Sorry, but you didn't either. So go back to your bashing with no facts realm.
Quote from Q2 '06 10Q (all numbers in thousands): "In aggregate, these revenue recognition errors resulted in the recognition of previously deferred revenue of approximately $17,500 for the three months ended June 30, 2006 and $18,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2006. In aggregate, these revenue recognition errors resulted in the deferral of revenue of approximately $3,500 for the three months ended June 30, 2005 and $7,300 for the six months ended June 30, 2005."
Does this mean the $17.5M recognized in Q2 from previously deferred revenue is a one-time event, or will this continue?
I just went back and read the company's filings, and it's clear that Q2 revenues of $31.7M are per the "new" revenue recognition rules. It would be silly for them to declare revenue per their old standards, and then back out the overstated amount. So if $31.7M is by the new rules, we have a good basis to compare the next quarter's revenues (i.e. I don't expect a 50% revenue decline from Q2 to Q3).
Now can someone please tell me why Q2 revenues were almost double Q1? What's going on there?
Yes, because the listed loss, was not real money. If you back out the goodwill, and other write downs, it has remained profitable. And the lawyers fees, acct fees, are all one year events. Giving merge easy yoy comparisons for next 4 Q's.
If you look CAREFULLY at the institutional holdings #'s and then compare it to Nasd.com's real time filings insitutional holdings according to EDGAR Online the differences will become apparent.
Don't think there is a better source.
IF someone finds a better one - please POST a link!