"Mark Kent" <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9b5o75-ttq.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mark Kent
>><mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:24:10 +0000
>><a7mm75-4b3.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Mustafa Korn <korn@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>
>>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:fo7d8o$2cu$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Jerry McBride <jmcbride@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Microsoft and the American way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>> | An interesting side-note on the potential Yahoo-Microsoft deal:
>>>>>>> | Microsoft has only $17B in cash/liquid reserves, but has bid
>>>>>>> $44.6B
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> | Yahoo.
>>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://warpedvisions.org/2008/02/03/microsoft-and-the-american-way/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $17 billion cash? Didn't they once sit on a $60 billion cash reserve
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> time? Wow, where did all the cash go?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you want to know? What do you know about their purchases and
>>>>> re-investments? Hint : go look at the cash sheets. *snigger* Mark Kent
>>>>> will show you how.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of the fools here think that the best thing for a company to do
>>>> with
>>>> "cash" is to hide it under a mattress or something. Somehow they think
>>>> that
>>>> having a huge pile of money just sitting there is somehow making the
>>>> most of
>>>> it. They are not familiar with concepts like investing the pile of cash
>>>> and
>>>> buying other companies and investing in technologies in order to grow
>>>> the
>>>> business.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, Scott (Mr Meyer, etc.), you don't seem to understand that
>>> investments appear on balance sheets as assets.
>>>
>>> The cash is *gone*.
>>>
>>
>> Define "gone"; the 31-Dec-07 balance sheet suggests 7.5B
>> in "cash and cash equivalents", a further 13.6B in short
>> term investments, and another 13.1B in net receivables.
>> Throw in inventory and other current assets and one gets
>> 37.8B, give or take. [*]
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MSFT
>>
>> This is down from 48.7B of current assets as of 2 years back,
>> and 40.2B as of the end of last FY:
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MSFT&annual
>>
>> but still disgustingly healthy -- at least at the moment.
>> One might also notice that they have *more* cash and cash
>> equivalents now than they did in 2005 (6.1B as opposed to
>> 4.9B, on the annual report). Where they're getting it
>> from, I'm not entirely certain, though they've lost quite
>> a bit in short term investments -- from 32.9B to 17.3B.
>> That's the part that's apparently wandered off.
>>
>> For comparison's sake, IBM has 46.6B of current assets,
>> but one would expect that; they get about half again as
>> much revenue as Microsoft (but with less gross profit and
>> net income).
>>
>> [*] presumably, the cash and cash equivalents is what's in their
>> "wallet"; current assets is what's in their "checking account".
>>
>
> If you look at the net assets lines over the last 3 years, you can see
> that net assets have fallen from US$45bn to US$25bn, ie., almost halved,
Idiot. It's "Net TANGIBLE assets" that have dropped. Do buy yourself a clue
and learn the difference.
>
> Microsoft still have substantial revenues, of course, so it all depends
> on what the stock-markets do. Should there be a run, as Microsoft look
> more and more like an Enron or Worldcom, then we could see them
Idiot. Worldcom and Enron failed because of fraudulant accounting. The
companies were already failing badly and losing money but they falsified
their financials to hide that fact. There is absolutely ZERO proof of this
happening at Microsoft. No proof of fraudulant accounting at all but we are
to assume this because a fool like you says so?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
