AOL / Time Warner

[PT]

Ok, somebody please explain this to me.

Headline:

AOL Time Warner's Profit Beats Estimates

Sounds good, doesn't it?

Ok, read on.

AOL Time Warner, burdened by an enormous debt load and lingering federal investigations into accounting at AOL, posted a first-quarter net profit of $396 million, or 9 cents a share.

Not bad, after the HUGE loss last year, not bad.

But, keep reading.

Net debt, including $3.69 million in cash and equivalents, rose to $26.3 billion, from $25.8 billion at the end of 2002.

Wait a second. They said they made 396 million, but their debt went up by .5 billion, or 500 million. Sounds like they lost 104 million to me.

 

[Squiggy]

Didn't we just go through the 'creative accounting' process with Enron?

 

[Gonz]

Ask Sen Daschle or Rep Burton how cutting spending in Washington means spending more than last year.

 

[Mirlyn]

Good news! I got another job! Monthly income is twice what I used to get. Oh, and don't worry about the $1300 I just charged to the Visa, I only had $20 on it last month anyway.

 

[never2muchRAM]

Didn't we just go through the 'creative accounting' process with Enron?

enron
adelphia cable
worldcom
global crossing
oracle
general electric
conseco
tyco
accenture
ingersoll-rand
e*trade
xerox
qwest
merril lynch
arthur andersond
citigroup
wal-mart

shall i go on. i know enron was the most popular case in the media, but all of these companies listed were almost as bad if not worse. what should make you even more sick to your stomach, is that our "publicly elected officials" are directly in support and even in some instances paving the way for all of this to happen, and lining their own pockets in the process. the payoff goes all the way up to our very own president BUSH and vice DICK. they're a real pair, those 2. if you are in the top 2% of money earners in this country those 2 should be your best friends and you should have pictures of them in your over-inflated wallet. if youre like the rest of us, you should despise these guys and their cabinet to your very core. want to know more? you should read pigs at the trough by arianna huffington. very eye opening.

 

[Squiggy]

Finally! A voice of reason....

 

[Squiggy]

Ask Sen Daschle or Rep Burton how cutting spending in Washington means spending more than last year.

A Republican administration and a Repulican Congress, and still he wants to float Dems as the reason for the economy being fucked....

 

[HomeLAN]

Current cash flow has little to do with current earnings. AOL may have borrowed for capital improvements (for which the depreciation will hit the profits NEXT period). More likely, they may have made more recent sales, still uncollected and sitting in A/R, that they have to finance short-term (this is epidemic in the world of advertising). They may have been paying off vendors who hadn't been paid back when profits sucked. Actually, their debt didn't rise as much as most people in the know expected. This probably isn't accounting games. It's probably the result of changes in operating methods.

That being said, they better cut that debt down before their asses get downgraded. And they stated that as priority 1.

 

[Gonz]

A Republican administration and a Repulican Congress, and still he wants to float Dems as the reason for the economy being fucked....

History proves that to be the exception. It happens with every congress & every executive

 

[Squiggy]

Thats my point, Gonz...So why are you floating Dems as the cause?

 

[freako104]

well congress is the opposite of progress as we all know

 

[never2muchRAM]

... This probably isn't accounting games. It's probably the result of changes in operating methods.

... And they stated that as priority 1.

they really got you eating out of the palm of their hand, dont they.

 

[Gonz]

Thats my point, Gonz...So why are you floating Dems as the cause?

Representative Dan Burton REPUBLICAN, IN

I made a point to hit both parties

 

[Squiggy]

oops...my bad

 

[outside looking in]

n2mr... I suppose from the way you talk you're all in favor of taking the majority of wealthy people's money and distributing it to the poor? Would you care to explain how that has any moral or ethical basis?

 

[never2muchRAM]

first of all, you've assumed incorrectly.

i am not in favor of anyone "taking" anything which is exactly what this whole thing is really all about if you'd look into it. i am talking about politicians making it legal for ceo's to do things and not disclose them to the shareholders that foot the bill for those irresponsible actions and their ludicrous salaries and bonuses even in years when the ceos and other officers and steering their ships aground. i am talking about those same politicians benefiting from those actions while the american public loses money in stocks, 401ks supporting their retirement, etc. i am against paying more taxes as an individual than an entire multibillion-dollar corporation that is "supposedly" based in bermuda but is eligible to receive millions of dollars from that same money that myself and people like me pay in taxes via government contracts which politicians in turn benefit in the way of campaign finance.

outside, you have always struck me as very intelligent, and i am somewhat positive that must be the case. please do not tell me that you are not familiar with this. this is "politics and business 101" yet you are speaking as though my comments are ridiculous and foreign to you. i dont understand how that can be possible.

 

[Gonz]

if youre like the rest of us, you should despise these guys and their cabinet to your very core.

From that line would be my guess.

Assuming their salaries & bonuses are ludicrous, where are the shareholders complaints? (before the collapse)

If you look at the tax bill, passed in a bi-partisan congress, and barely implemented, in which Dubya is trying to get the current congress to accelerate, it would put more money in the pockets of everybody.

example-family of 4, making 50k/yr would go from a $1000./yr tax bill to $50. Works for me. So what if Gates gets an additional 2 million off his taxes. He earns more than most. It's fair.

 

[never2muchRAM]

none of my claims have anything to do with partisan this or that. secondly i am late for work, but you better believe we can pick this up where we left of. in my absence, i suggest you do some homework cuz i am coming with facts and sources loaded in my p-shooters!!! i sincerely hope the corporate tax game isnt nearly as alein to you as i am inferring from your comments. i will lose faith in the american public if that is true. i am talking "corporate accounting" here NOT personal accounting. that is a whole 'nother subject.

 

[outside looking in]

first of all, you've assumed incorrectly.

You're right, I assumed incorrectly because I apparently misinterpreted your statements. This was the source of my confusion:

BUSH and vice DICK. they're a real pair, those 2. if you are in the top 2% of money earners in this country those 2 should be your best friends and you should have pictures of them in your over-inflated wallet. if youre like the rest of us, you should despise these guys and their cabinet to your very core.

I read into that statement that you thought people making a large income weren't paying enough in taxes. On second inspection, it seems that, regardless of where 2% actually falls, you were really addressing corporate executives, etc., who use business tax sheltering to make more money than someone earning that same salary from a typical employer would be able to keep after taxes.

Yep... I'm all agains tax loopholes. I would actually support a fair and flat tax with very, very few holes and exceptions. Our tax system is entirely too complex.

 

[Gonz]

i sincerely hope the corporate tax game isnt nearly as alein to you as i am inferring from your comments.

In my case, yep. Economics 101+ puts me to sleep.