Red Hat restatement triggers legal attacks

TalkBack 27 of 51:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Most of you are idiots (you know who you are)

The story clearly states that the changes were due to internal revisions in the way that revenue is booked. There are no hard and fast GAP standards to follow when you are on a accrual basis of accounting for booking the types of revenue they were talking about. Since most of you are clueless, I will educate you. Several years ago, a major pharmaceutical company (CIBA if you care to know) changed the way that they held their inventory on their books. Inventory was accounted for using LIFO. This means that all of the stuff that was manufactured first was still being held in inventory at the presumably higher costs associated with manufacturing it. When they changed the accounting to reflect FIFO, all of the older inventory needed to be depreciated to the current cost of manufacturing, hence the books reflected a MAJOR loss. Remember, inventory=asset. Same deal here. No one set out to defraud anyone. If they wanted to, they could have ignored the recomendation of their auditors and went on their happy way

Posted by: bsuch   Posted on: 07/16/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Security Explorer for SharePoint Version 7.0.2 ScriptLogic Security Explorer for SharePoint is a powerful, graphical solution for ... Download Now
• Can your business work smarter? IBM Today, productivity is at a premium and IT budgets are at a minimum. Work ... Download Now
• Managing Dell PowerEdge Servers Using IPMItool Dell Dell promotes industry-standard server management capabilities through its ... Download Now