Red Hat Breaks Even, Beats Street Estimate 165
jfinke writes "Linux Today is running an article about Redhat's financial situation.
The company reported an adjusted net loss of $600,000, or break even per share, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2001, compared to an adjusted net loss of $5.6 million, or $0.04 per share, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000. On a reported basis, the net loss was $24.2 million, or $0.14 per share, compared with a net loss of $24.6 million, or $0.17 per share in fiscal 2000." Congrats to all the folks there.
Re:Red Hat Market Cap. (Score:1)
A billion is 1 x10^12.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:1)
Re:w00t (Score:1)
But stocks are for wimps. Buy options.
Re:for those weak at otions (Score:1)
Re:w00t (Score:1)
Like the previous poster said, but elaborated a bit...
RHAT September 10 calls give you the right to purchase RHAT stock at $10 on or before the third Friday of September. So if the stock is at $15 before that point, you can either
1. Excercise the option, paying $10 per share plus the original $1 for the option and if you wish, sell at $15 for a $4/share profit. You still have to fork out $11/share, but since you can sell them immediately, the $10 is not really risked (unless the market tanks between the time you exercise the option and sell the stock, which is unlikely since the whole process only takes a few minutes).
2. Say RHAT gets to $15 by mid August. You could already make $4 by exercising that $1 option and selling. However, there's still a month left on it and someone will no doubt believe RHAT will go up in that next month. So most likely the stock will sell for $6 or more. So I usually prefer this method of making money with options.
Speaking of options trading, I think I have sinned. I traded Microsoft call options this week. Now, anything involving MSFT just doesn't feel right. But the proof that it was a sin: The after commission profit was exactly $666! I'm not kidding......
Re:I would never invest in linux-only software cor (Score:1)
Not to mention convenience (automatic updates) and expensive training classes.
I think RHAT has a reasonably bright future.
Re:w00t (Score:1)
Double, triple, and quadruple are words. Does anyone know what the word for 5X is, if any?
Re:Break Evan I sorta see, but... (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Only on Wall Street (Score:1)
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
Re:Only on Wall Street (Score:1)
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
Re:woah.. mod this up. Yes, it has. (Score:1)
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
Is it hard to sell support for Windows because of its easy-to-use GUI?
But then again, I'm biased. I work for MontaVista Software; we support companies using linux for embedded systems development. I can't give you any specifics (and we aren't publicly traded, so you can't look it up) but the three-year (or so) history of our business shows our model to be no "losing proposition".
Re:Bull-poo on your Bull-poo (Score:1)
"Funny how you edit my post to omit the point where I discuss P/E and then say that I didn't mention it."
Oh, for god's sake fine. Here's the one place in your post that you mention P/E:
"Red Hat would have to double revenues without increasing costs to get to a P/E of 10."
So what does this show us?
1) You grasp the numeric relationship of P/E to P/R.
2) You really like to use P/E without a context (So RHAT's P/E would be 10. So what? You still don't tell anyone why thats high, outside of saying that "Red Hat...faces competition.")
"Bwwwaahhhaaahhaaahahaa, ok you find a company with a P/E of one that has not had major accounting irregularity accusations or the like made. A P/E of one means that a billion dollar market cap company makes a billion dollars profit in a year."
Look, man--I'm not the one who said (in the previous post) that "in sane market conditions" a company's P/R should be 1. Since you obviously accept that a P/E can be greater than 1 in "sane market conditions," you've set yourself up. Your statement limits the trading multiple of a company to the costs of doing business. I think this is silly.
"A P/E should normally be in the range of about 15 to 30, representing a return on investment of 7% to 3.5%. Companies with very high growth can justify higher P/Es - but these should be rarities not the norm."
Holy @$%#! Now you're comparing P/E to ROI? What guru taught you to do analysis? Why don't you just accept it: P/E should be used in the context of earnings growth. When E = 0, you should use the PRG ratio instead. When R = 0, you should walk away from the stock (IMHO).
"Conflating a PEG ratio of one and a PRG ratio of one is insane - that would only hold for a company with 100% margins, something no packager of free software can hope for."
Which is why I didn't do that. I said that, in a fully and fairly valued situation, the price/revenue/revenue-growth should be 1 (or close to one). This works because P/R and P/E are related by a constant factor--1/costs--at any given point in time. As long as you use revenue growth in a PRG and not earnings growth, then you can do the same sort of analysis as you would a PEG.
Look, my point is (and was), that you didn't use the PR ratio in any sort of meaningful context--which you didn't. If you want to be a bear, then fine, go right ahead--be a bear. Don't, however, expect to go around making silly, talking-head-analyst valuation assesments without expecting to be called on them once in a while.
Bull-poo (Score:2)
You watch too much CNBC. P/E or P/R ratios in isolation are meaningless. Saying that a stock is overvalued because it has a P/R ratio of 10 (or 20...or 30...) is like saying that a stock is overvalued because the CEO is short.
For example, is a stock overvalued at a P/R of 20 if it's expected forward growth rate in revenue is 20%? How about 50%? This is why the PEG ratio was invented--it allows you to use the P/E ratio in some sort of context, which is critical...
Re:Bull-poo (Score:2)
No, this is what you said:
"Err folks even in the software sector a price/revenue of 1 billion to 100 million/yr is pretty rich."
So no, you didn't say projected P/E. You didn't even say P/E--which is why I mentioned both P/R and P/E ratios. They're objective measures of the same process.
"PEG ratios are a stock screening tool, they are not a substitute for proper analysis."
Nor did I suggest that they were. I suggested that you can only use a P/E or a P/R ratio in context, which is true. Your original statement was misleading and incorrect.
"BTW Price revenue ratio in sane market conditions tends to be 1, o-n-e, not 20."
Oh, please. If you accept that a P/E could reasonably be greater than 1, you're saying that the multiple a stock trades at in sane market conditions (your term), is limited to multiple implied by the cost of doing business. Give me a break--a company that is expected to grow revenue 50% annually should only be valued at it's current revenue per share?
What I suspect you mean here is that the price/revenue/revenue-growth ratio should be 1, o-n-e, in a fully and fairly valued situation. Which, again, leads us back to the whole context discussion...
"Go read the motley fool site a bit more, they like PEG ratios but it is only ONE of he criteria they use out of 12 or so."
Oh man...
First of all, just because a fellow mentions a PEG does not mean he got it from the Motley Fool.
Second, and more importantly, I never said that a PEG should be used in isolation. I said that your original post was wrong--and it is. I'm tired of hearing people like you spout off about "absurdly high P/E" ratios without putting their statements into a meaningful context.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
uhhm, grade 3 math (Score:1)
(15 - 5) / 5 = 200% increase
Or, in other words:
if you invest $100 in the $100 stock, your investment will be worth $110 in a year.
if you invest $100 in the $5 stock, your investment will be worth $300 in a year.
But I'm sure you knew that and it was a simple mistake.
___
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
Press release and a quick-n-dirty analyzis... (Score:4)
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press _Q42001.html [redhat.com]
I haven't been able to reach the article since it appears to be Slashdotted, but I would be surprised if it is anything more than a rehash of the press-release with the obligatory journalist missunderstandings and confusing rephrasing.
A quick-n-dirty summary/analyzis from someone with *some* economic education and experience:
Red Hat's fiscal year 2001 ranges from February 28 2000 to February 28 2001 and that's what they have released figures for.
They made a "reported net loss" of $24.2 million, compared to a net loss of $24.6 million the year before, which by first look might seem like an extremely small improvement. However, their revenue rised by 100%, from $42 million in 2000 to $84 million in 2001, hinting that they are expanding rapidly so their losses are likely to come from investments that haven't payed off yet.
However, their "adjusted net loss" changed much more, from $19 million in 2000 to $5.9 million in 2001. It's very typical that a company that makes large aquisitions/investments wants to spread the cost over a few years and that's most likely what they have done here. This is actually good since it keeps the company's result level (and thus its shareprice) a bit more stable. You can't make your big cost magically disappear, you can only spread it over a few years.
The thing that Red Hat emphasizes is that they only made an adjusted net loss of $600.000 for the *LAST QUARTER*, trying to give the impression that they are on the virge of going break-even. However, remember that this is an _adjusted_ net loss, so they can have done some magic here, but I do find their statement believable considering their rapid increase in revenue, but we can't know for sure until we see the next report.
What I find to be most promising is the rapid increase in revenue. Up 100% compared to a year ago. That shows to me that Red Hat is on the right track.
Re:The real story (Score:1)
No biggie -- it's just this is the second time in as many days my posts have been mis-interpreted.
An egoist would blame the educational system in this country. I know better -- I'm not being as clear as I should be. Sometimes it's because I'm lazy, sometimes because I'm trying to convey information through subtlety and nuance -- either way, I'm not listening to the lessons taught by Hemmingway...
One of these days, I'll get it right :)
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
Without a really close examination of the books, NOBODY knows. Publicly traded companies have to meet a truckload of regulations, but in the end, there is a lot of accounting chicanery going on.
More money than you can shake a stick at, plus the stick.
It's in the NASDAQ Corporation Handbook. You get that when you get the decoder ring and learn the secret handshake.
When Bill Gates gets down on all fours and lets Larry Ellison bugger him.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:The real story (Score:2)
Unfortunately, most of the time companies do better than they forcast. They sandbag as much as they can, because "beating First Call estimates" sounds a lot better than "oops, did we look under the couch cushions?"
Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of what RedHat's done here, but it means little in the long term. What I see from RedHat is more than a quarter-by-quarter strategy, and more of a next-ten-years strategy. This is the reason MSFT is such a great stock, and Microsoft such a worthwhile company to invest in.
As soon as you see RedHat Labs budget cut, run, don't walk, to the nearest exit. It means RedHat's ready to sink.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:The real story (Score:2)
I'm glad you're passionate about this -- if you read my post again, you'll notice that you agree with me 100% I'm NOT (repeat NOT) advocating a quarter-by-quarter strategy
To reiterate, MSFT doesn't live by the quarterly returns, as witnessed by the gobs of money they spend on research (some of which is pure research). Now, Bob Cringely has commented that [pbs.org] this money is spent now, to be revoked if MS needs it to make their quarterly numbers look good. Maybe, maybe not.
Here's a summary, just to hammer the point home: I don't think a quarter-by-quarter strategy is good. I think a next-ten-years strategy is good, and I see some signs that RedHat gets this. Clear enough?
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
We will see (Score:1)
Re:how is -$600k break even? (Score:1)
Re:Nice to see... (Score:1)
Yup, they're going to end up on the dot-compost heap sooner or later.
Sorry, but one bad pun deserves another..
Re:So, uh. (Score:1)
Overall it seems IBM really is commited to Linux and seeing tangible benefit from it.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
The adjustment's never factored in, 'cause, well, they did make those $4.6M somehow. Now, it would be nice if someday they showed an operating profit, but this is still good news.
Re:Next Slashdot Interview (Score:1)
Next Slashdot Interview (Score:2)
I can see it already:
Ask Stock Market Analyst Prakesh Patel [yahoo.com] of W.R. Hambrecht & Co. about Redhat's Financial Statements
Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that interview. I listened in to the Redhat analyst's conference call [yahoo.com] last night, but don't really have the background to understand much of it.
Used linux-based accounting software (Score:1)
Re:Where Should I Invest? (Score:1)
MSFT 300B / 20,000 (est) -> ~15,000,000 per employee
RHAT 949M / 200 (est) -> ~4,700,000 per employee
I don't know what it means though.
A little beyond the press release (Score:1)
Specifically it notes that while their revenue doubled to $27 million, $5.5 of that was from it's acquisition of Planning Technologies.
Also, there's this little blurb [zdnet.com] on ZDNET.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:1)
Breaking even isn't that impressive, considering they really don't have to spend much on R&D except for say RPM.... What else has Redhat done? On the other hand it's rather impressive that they've suckered that many people into buying what is otherwise a free product.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
a losing proposition, selling free software...
My opinion.
Corel is not a Linux company (Score:1)
Re:4Q-FY2001, eh? not possible. (Score:2)
if
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?t
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:1)
All things considered, breaking even on your core business after many, many quarters of being in the red is a very good thing (or, at the minimum, a cause for celebration).
It's certainly not making megabucks in profit, but coming from where they've been, it's certainly an accomplishment.
--
Re:Where Should I Invest? (Score:5)
Sure, MSFT may have had a better earnings/share, but look at their revenue growth: 18% over the last year vs RHAT's 106% growth. Indeed, RHAT had more growth between quarters (20%) than MSFT did all year.
I know where I'd put my money. (Of course, when you're small, it's easier to get large percentage gains. That works against you when you're large. The rolling average (filters out daily fluctuations) on MSFT's share price has been steadily downward for the last year.)
This is news because.. (Score:3)
This is really impressive, RedHat have done something many many other relatively recent internet boom start ups will never achieve. They have proof that their existance doesn't leak money and that is a cue for their customer base to increase exponentially (when you know your supplier is financially comfortable, you don't mind using them). The same game rules for all corporates apply to Open Source / Free Software companies too. Business is after all, business, but RedHat have one very large difference.
This is good for everyone in the Linux and Free Software worlds. It means RedHat can be pretty confident in gaining more funding, employees and clients and can further fund Free Software development for us all. Those of you not into this will benefit (albeit later) from the poker this provides those 1970's companys to improve their offerings, and I hope you enjoy seeing their profits knowing that money could have staying in your pockets.
While I personally don't see corporate success (at least in the distribution vendor sector) as synonimous with Linux's and Free Software success, it is nice to see that the world isn't locked into its technological straight jackets just yet.
Well done to them.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:1)
They lost over $5 million in the 4th quarter of 2000.
That's what the submitter is trying to say. I agree that the wording is a littlle bit confusing.
Re:how is -$600k break even? (Score:1)
Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
I'm really confused here and I haven't been able to find an good answer.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
Compare that figure to the $600,00 they adjusted their loss to in 2001, and that's what I don't understand.
Anyone have a good explanation, or can point me to a concise resource for these sorts of questions?
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
Someone mentioned depreciated elsewhere in the thread, but I don't see how that ties in.
how is -$600k break even? (Score:1)
Ok, explain it to me... How is -$600,000 break even?
Wrong- Linux community betrayed Corel (Score:3)
It seems ever since Corel committed their GPL violation about a year back (quickly corrected btw), the linux community has had nothing but scorn for Corel. Slashdot is full of comments trashing Corel and Corel Linux or Corel's CEO or what have you.
I'm reminded of the stories in recent days about Mac OS X bringing UNIX to the masses. Well, a year and a half ago, Corel Linux was an honest attempt to bring Linux to the masses. But by not supporting, and worse, openly bashing the effort, I think the Linux community shot itself in the foot.
So how can you blame Corel for scaling way back on Linux? If their help is not appreciated, why should they bother wasting their time?
Re:Only on Wall Street (Score:1)
BTW, where do you live? I could buy six or seven nice houses here for $600K.
Congratulations! (Score:4)
If I lost $600,000, I'd have to take a beating from Vinnie in the back alley... he'd probably break both my legs and an arm as well.
Spread that out over a million or so shares, and it doesn't look as bad though, right? I mean, that near break-even status is fantastic news compared to the bath that all the shareholders have taken if they got in at the IPO...
I'm not trying to bash Red Hat as a company... I think they make a fantastic (albeit relatively shitty) product and I think they're involved in a good (albeit financially stinko) cause. I wish them well. Just don't say congratulations when your money would have been better invested in shares of Krispy Kreme.
Cash flow? (Score:1)
People concerned about the survival of Red Hat or any startup/high-growth company should usually look at cash flow as an indicator of health.
Now of course every company reporting "losses" isn't in bad shape with cash, and definitely every "profitable" company isn't in a good cash position.
So how's Red Hat's cash flow?
Re:So, uh. (Score:1)
> earnings report with a tip of the hat to them?
Last time I looked Microsoft were convicted
of breaking the laws of America. So unless you
are into cheering other criminals then it shouldn't interest you.
I am afraid for Redhat, I think IBM cosy relationship as a "partner" could turn ugly with
the gorillas need for service revenue too
RedHat's new Accounting System (Score:4)
Good News Except.... (Score:3)
Foolish perspective [fool.com]
Red hat got those numbers by cutting costs and through an aquisition. The business still has some growing to do, and remember... they are still a reletively small company. Lets all hope they can pull it off.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
Re:Where the good news came from .... (Score:3)
MSFT and Palm do this through their monopoly of their respective software worlds. Coca-cola does it by having the most recognizable product in the world. With Intel it is the high barrier of entry to chip fabrication that makes it impossible for a company like AMD or Transmeta from wiping them out. Some (actually most) also use patents to keep other businesses out of their houses.
I have no idea how RHAT could possibly maintain a moat around their business if they are giving away their software. I think Brand recognition is their best bet.
Linux might be unique; RHAT's business model might be unique; Money is money. I don't see how they can ever be as profitable to an investor as MSFT has been. I wish it weren't that way.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
Re:WOW!!! (Score:1)
BTW> Netscape lost money because its browser sucked ass, not because it gave it away.
PS> Redhat does suck. They're the Linux equivilant of Microsoft. The only thing that saves RedHat is the fact that Linux is so stable and secure to begin with. (And the fact that other people write the code
Re:Struggling to compete (Score:2)
Re:Only on Wall Street (Score:2)
Speaking of Costa Rica (Score:1)
Sorry for the 20 questions, but I'm curious:
How is net access there? Are Cable modems or DSL available?
How much does a nice house go for?
How long have you been done there for? Would it be a good place to retire?
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:3)
4q 2001? (Score:1)
just my $.02
E.
-
Re:Numbers not so good actually (Score:1)
cash, they had a few years worth of cash.
Now their burn rate is nearly zero. So they can go even longer without rasing more capital.
The project a profit for next quarter.
This doesn't sound like a deterirating cash position.
They are doing a lot better than eToys.
Disclorure: I own stock in Red Hat.
Re:Only on Wall Street (Score:1)
$0.00375 or 0.375 cents/share.
If you round that to the nearest penny, its $0.00
or break even.
Wow! (Score:2)
I guess this proves that when you do it right, you CAN make money off of Open Source. Free stuff making money. That is just too cool.
So, uh. (Score:1)
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
Ok, with the loss of $5.6 at 4 cents a share indicates a total number of shares of 140 million. (I have no idea if this is the actual amount of RH shares; fractional amounts of cents aren't listed.)
It's amazing what looking up [msn.com] a company based on the stockticker will tell you. There it is, "# Shares Out. 161.6 Mil ".
Re:Only on Wall Street (Score:1)
Really? Where's that? I'm in Costa Rica and even here I can't buy a nice house for $100K.
Re:Speaking of Costa Rica (Score:1)
Re:Price/Revenue Ratio (Score:2)
best Red Hat employees will do better for themselves
by setting up their own consulting companies than
working for Red Hat.
Umm, not really. I don't know if I can be considered one of Red Hat's best employees, but I'm sure some of them think about this just the way I do.
Yes, I could probably make more money by setting up my own linux consulting company, but money isn't everything.
I think I'm doing much better for myself when I'm doing what I like to do (hacking on open source code) than getting more money by setting up systems and possibly having to take care of financial matters.
If I'm ever fired, I'll probably do just that - but I'd much rather stay with Red Hat where I can do fun stuff almost all the time.
Losing Less Money per Year (Score:1)
Redhat exceeded its own expectations. Nice but hardly surprising since I'm sure there is a margin of safety in the expectations they set for themselves. The question is now, are they making money yet? The answer is still no, but they are losing less money per share than they were a year ago.
This just doesn't seem like a sterling endorsement to me. Hey we still haven't made dime one, but were losing less money than we thought we would. This coupled with the fact that much of redhats customer base was probably now defunct tech companies doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. The information revolution is, in many ways, almost over and where is their steady income going to come from now?
Struggling to compete (Score:1)
____________________
Remember, not all
Re:Corel is not a Linux company (Score:2)
How can you say Corel has turned their back on the Linux community? Their Distro was aimed at non-geek windows users and to that end introduced alot of people to Linux. They still have not sold their distro division and even if they do they have already said that they will keep 20% and help out the new company. Even after saying they were ,thinking of spinning off CLOS, they released localised version in all the major european languages. They have Linux versions of WordPerfect Office 2K, Corel Draw and Photo-paint in a number of languages and they are committed to upgrading them even though they are not making alot of money off of them so far. They had paid programmers working on the WINE project and still host it on their servers. So while they make most of their money off Win/Mac applications, their committement to Linux is still strong.
Bad numbers (Score:2)
The +600K number seems to come from considering revenue from the merged units without considering the costs associated with the acquisition. It's hard to tell until the 10-Q comes out.
Time to buy more (Score:2)
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
Re:Only on Wall Street (Score:3)
Re:Where Should I Invest? (Score:2)
Playing this kind of odds game is definitely risky. Once the money is invested, treat it as gone and then you'll be pleasantly surprised if you get anything at all back.
The real story (Score:5)
In financial markets this is a very good thing.
Positive news for a technology company these days is great news for everybody on slashdot. Linux needs a company that can be held up in board meetings and pointed to --> Hey these guys are doing business, the street likes them, linux has some base, let's give it some thought.
I explained linux to my grandfather last night and opensource made him very incredulous. A bunch of random people writing code isn't going to break down conservative barriers. A large successful corporation whose business is linux will break those barriers. Positive news on Redhat is great from this perspective, especially given the present market conditions.
Nice to see... (Score:2)
Sure beats the news coming out of Turbo, VA, Eazel, SuSE, and Corel of late. I only they can sustain this growth.
Re:Nice to see... (Score:2)
Re:Break Evan I sorta see, but... (Score:2)
Re:Nice to see... (Score:2)
Numbers not so good actually (Score:5)
On a reported basis, the net loss was $24.2 million, or $0.14 per share, compared with a net loss of $24.6 million, or $0.17 per share in fiscal 2000.
They only broke even for one quarter using adjusted numbers. The actual losses are actually quite stunning. The term adjusted losses is just accounting voodoo to hide the company's deteriorating cash position.
Re:how is -$600k break even? (Score:3)
Re:The real story (Score:2)
Let me explain to you: Short term 'pay me now' type decisions are *NOT* good for a company. As much as Wall Street likes to reward companies that are willing to turn themselves and their people inside out for the 'Next Best Quarter', the overall health of the company and the people involved will *DECREASE* when you are unable to make long term plans.
In general, this is the sad story of American Corporate Culture today - when the economy turns cold (even mildly like it has now) - big companies start doing the layoff shuffle, cutting costs, ending benefit increases etc etc - this causes the 'looming' downturn to fruition. (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).
If you look to European or Japanese business you will see a more healthy outlook, and a more mature perspective with regards to employees (in terms of company to employee commitment during 'rough times').
The American Moneyed Class who makes demands of all the business in the country, driving them quarter by quarter, only to realize greater and greater gains - without any regard to sustainability/environment/people/society/etc are tearing America inside out from the inside.
So, what does this have to do with Red Hat stock? Not that much exactly - BUT - your comment that MSFT is 'better' because they concentrate on Quarter2Quarter results is foolish, myopic and ignorant. It is telling of the mess 'we' have gotten ourselves into. Witness current economic meltdown which is simply caused by the Wall Street Gamblers without any attachment to productivity or demand - obviously our current system has gone a great deal further than 'free market' into the realm of Dollar Domination of All Things (for complete lack of a better term J). The market determines who can/cannot eat, travel, vacation not because they aren't talented - but because they cannot risk such spending because they are really at the mercy of a handful of Rich CEOs, Board Members, Congresscritters and other members of the Bourgeois Class who would unemploye them if this quarters results don't look good - and risk loosing $50M of their own in Stock Options. It may make a few people money now - but it is guaranteed to cause hardship in future for all those involved who were not part of the Vampire Slavemaster Brigade riding on the backs of every citizen along the way - either the ridden tire of the parasites or the sham of 'selling your capital as income' finally shows itself. One way or the other the present system is doomed to collapse on itself (starting now?) - the only real problem is there will have to be a big-BIG stretch of Bad Times for people to wake up, get pissed off, and restore a sensible, fair, democratic society - and put economics into a sensible perspective.
Read
Re:Nice to see... (Score:4)
Actually today on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website, [cbc.ca]Corel Reports a modest profit [cbc.ca]
Break even (Score:3)
As to their accounting (the difference between the $24 million GAAP net loss and the $600k adjusted loss), this is allowable by the SEC and reflects mainly one-time or non-cash charges. Although this sort of manipulation should always raise eyebrows, it is usually subject to intense scrutiny by the outside auditors in a company like this (by "like this" I mean small tech company with a big recent drop in stock price.) The outside auditors often are named as defendants in shareholder lawsuits because they (and the D&O insurance provider) are the only ones with a meaningful way to pay the claims.
The meaningful differences between GAAP and adjusted are:
- Goodwill amortization: this is a non-cash charge to account for a company that was acquired. Excluding this (as an investor) makes sense if the company is not in the business of acquiring companies - if it was unusual (everything here is IMHO, if I need a disclaimer);
- Stock-based compensation: although there are several explanations for this, the most usual one is that a company gave out options before they were public and the SEC said the strike prices were below "fair market value" later on - the difference needs to be amortized over the vesting of the options. Again, a non-cash charge and should be ignored by the investor if the company is not continuing to give out cheap stock;
- Merger, acquisition and other: this is usually the abused bucket. It's hard to know what is in here, if the expenses are cash or not, and if the expenses are actually recurring and not one-time (the company will say they are, of course, but hard to evaluate the truth of that, is what I mean). Luckily, it's the smallest of the numbers.
The proof will be next quarter - assuming they do no more acquisitions, will their operating cash-flow be positive? The only real value in a business is its ability to generate cash in the future, not its reported GAAP earnings. That is what RHAT is trying to tell the street with its adjustments: we are very close to generating cash with our business. Up to you if you believe them or not.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:4)
Right there, you answered your own question! It's economic voodoo, involving books, calculators, accountants, and most likely the sacrifice of virgins to volcanoes.
-----
D. Fischer
Re:Where Should I Invest? (Score:5)
The more appropriate question, is whether Red Hat will exist in five years. (Of course, some ask the same about MS.) It's considered by most a bad idea to invest in companies that won't exist in a few years.
-----
D. Fischer
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:4)
A loss of $600,000 divided by that 140 million is a loss of $.0042857 per share. Since you can't have
Likewise, if they had a profit of $600,000, it would be considered a break even gain.
Where Should I Invest? (Score:4)
Microsoft's Earnings [microsoft.com]
Or...
"RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.--March 22, 2001-- Red Hat, Inc., the leader in in developing, deploying and managing open source solutions, today reported revenue of $27 million for the fourth quarter ended February 28, 2001, an increase of 106% versus the $13.1 million reported for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000 and an increase of 20% over the third quarter of fiscal 2001"
Red Hat [linuxtoday.com]
You Decide....
Where the good news came from .... (Score:2)
Also, note the stock is up 18 per cent today. Wish I'd bought some more back when it was down, but I'm only holding about 1000 shares in all my accounts now.
This is turning out to be another tech bubble in the stock market - just like with autos (4000 companies and only 4-6 survivors), TVs (thousands becoming three), and radio (ditto).
The trick is to buy the long-term survivors who understand the essentials - branding, marketing, cash flow, quality - when they're cheap. Not when they're hyped.
IMHO, RHAT is still cheap. The current price is still a good one to pick up and put in your IRA for retiring on, just as MSFT was back in the days. But don't have more than 5 per cent of your dollars in it, and don't expect to sell it in less than 5 years. And if you ever find yourself holding more than 20 per cent in it due to stock growth, liquidate some.
If you do this, you can join me in retirement in Europe and the Caribbean along with the other millionaires.
Oh, the rest of your money? Stop buying tech and shove it into an S&P index fund (e.g. Vanguard) and leave it there. Stop trading all the time!
Re:The real story (Score:2)
If you look to European or Japanese business you will see a more healthy outlook, and a more mature perspective with regards to employees (in terms of company to employee commitment during 'rough times').
I am not sure about Europe. But for Japan, that may be the case ten years ago. Not anymore.
I don't have the link here, but past few years several big japanese companies, expecially those in financial business, shut down (NOT layoff!) because of bad investment decision and bad government supervision.
Re:Reported net loss versus adjusted net loss? (Score:2)
Without a really close examination of the books, NOBODY knows. Publicly traded companies have to meet a truckload of regulations, but in the end, there is a lot of accounting chicanery going on.
Bull. Companies must file an annual report dictating their financial dealings every year to be publicly traded. This report will give you all the information you'll need (and more) to know about any "accounting chicanery" (barring outright fraud both by RedHat and whoever it's independent auditor is).
The likely difference that RedHat is citing are called "one-time expenses". These are usually acquisition costs (say, another company, or a patent folder, etc), lawsuits, natural disasters (could the recent stock market downturn be classified as one?), etc. Since these aren't likely to be repeated next (fiscal) year, they don't really have any bearing on RedHat's long-term financial situation, so they aren't factored into their operating income.
As for depreciation and whatnots, these are valid accounting practices. Let's say RedHat purchases a building for it do business out of. Does it make sense to expense the $10 million dollar building in the 1st quarter of 2001, and show no costs for it ever again? Of course not. They will continue to receive the benefit of that building for 10-25+ years, and so the building is depreciated over a larger time period and each year shows only a portion of the expense. If that wasn't the case, financial statements would be extremely cyclic as whenever large (expensive) assets were bought and/or sold, there would be a huge drop and/or gain in revenue.
That being said, there is window dressing that can be done to make your annual reports look more attractive. That's why you must take into account a few years worth of reports to note trends and if any accounting procedures were changed, you must wonder why. For instance, if RedHat was using stragiht-line depreciation last year, and now has changed to (IIRC) graduated depreciation, that could definitely affect it's financial statements. The responsible thing to do would be to point out the change in procedures, why it was made, and adjusted revenues for the previous years. I believe it's illegal to not point out the changes. It's up to whoever is analyzing the sheets to question why they did it, and how much better it made their statements look.
Excellent! Maybe this will raise Tech Stock Morale (Score:2)
With the number of companies laying people off and stock prices under 20% of IPO value I think the investment world was getting wary of ever putting money into tech firms ever again. It's nice to see things can go against the trend once in a while.
Way to go Red Hat!
Price/Revenue Ratio (Score:3)
Red Hat would have to double revenues without increasing costs to get to a P/E of 10. I guess that is possible, just about. But Red Hat also faces serious competition and anyone and their brother can set up to compete at any time.
I would take the opposite tack, the cost of information approaches the marginal cost of production in a free market.
Red hat could make money on the consulting side but very few consulting companies are structured as public companies, they are structured as partnerships for very good reasons. Essentially as the Linux market matures the best RedHat employees will do better for themselves by setting up their own consulting companies than working for Red hat.
Re:Price/Revenue Ratio (Score:3)
It is worse than that, it is hard to grow the company quickly without the product quality going down the tubes. If a software company stamps out 1 million extra copies of the software and sells them the extra cash is (practically) pure profit and the quality of the millionth extra copy is the same as the first.
If you have a consulting company it is very difficult to grow faster than 20% a year without quality sinking. Even if you can find the number of good applicants you need it takes time to weed out the good from the bad. Nobody gets a hundred wizards applying for jobs each year, you have to take kids out of college and learn them. That means choosing people who can develop new skills.
A certain famous Mountain view ex-company started out as an elite net savy company and ended up like one of those big consulting Co.s that hire practically anyone off the street who walks in the door. Nobody can do 100% growth in services without the quality going down the tubes.
The basic problem is that geeks have skill sets that are at least as specialized, valuable and in demand as lawyers. The average salary of a lawyer might be much higher ($200,000 vs. $100,000 for the alpha geek) but until now the difference has been made up in stock option grants (last year $0 for lawyer, $0->$2,000,000 for geek). OK so for many these are a lottery but as any bookie will tell you the percieved value of a 1 in 100 chance of making a million is much more than the arithmetic $10,000.
After the dotcrash geeks are demanding cash on the barrel. Those paid in options are getting bigger grants. What this means is that the market is really really good for geeks and not good at all for people hoping to make a fortune off the surplus value of geek labor.
I would expect that in 5 years time the number of geeks would be perhaps 100% larger and the cost of hiring an alpha geek would be at least as high as a lawyer. Already there are a few geeks who command $5-10,000 / day consulting fees and if the black sholles value of their options is counted in million dollar sallaries. I don't ever expect that to become the norm (bar hyperinflation) but the number of golden-geeks will exceed the number of golden lawyers.
Another point to ponder, capital has a high rate of return only when it is scarce. Capital is no longer scarce in geekdom. So why should the gains from linux go to the party providing the ubiquitous commodity (shareholders capital) rather than those supplying the scarce commodity (talent).
Geeks of the world untie, you have nothing to loose but your suits!
Red Hat Market Cap. (Score:2)
$1b
That's 1 Billion Dollars.
or $1,000,000,000.
or $1E9
one billion dollars for a company that takes a free product and puts it in a box. cardboard and shrinkwrap must be very needed in the linux world.
1 Billion Dollars.
it is a crazy world.
Given that fact, Aquafina should be worth at least 100 billion dollars on it's own. Considering that they just take something basically free (water) and package it.
________________________________
Re:Where Should I Invest? (Score:2)
I don't claim to be qualified to understand all the mumbo jumbo, but it's food for thought at least.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:I would never invest in linux-only software cor (Score:2)
You are sadly misinformed. Check out Selling Free Software [gnu.org]. Even RMS says selling free software is OK.
Also given the fact that anyone can simply download the software and read the book online, something of a disincentive to even buy the shrinkwrap.
Free MP3's on Napster, and yet CD sales are up. How does this figure into your argument?
Linux should be developed along with other products..such as how ibm distributes servers with linux on them. They make the money from the server, not the software
That's one model. Service + Support is another model. It remains to be seen how each model will fare.
Don't make investment choices based on this post. :)
On that we agree... in fact, don't make any sort of decision from what you read on /. :)
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:Where Should I Invest? (Score:2)
Well.. I hate to break it to you, but *every* company follows similar accounting schemes to that of Microsoft. Including Red Hat, I'm sure. Everyone knows it, and no one cares.
The article you're linking is written by one of those completely insane alarmists.. The same guys running around claiming the government is hiding aliens and has everyones phone tapped and a hidden video camera in every TV, etc..
"Stock analysts" have little connection to reality (Score:2)
Bill Parish is needlessly hostile in his wording, and so comes off as a conspiracy theorist, but he's got the facts right. Employees are getting stock options and selling them (or holding them); consider the exactly equivalent situation of Microsoft selling the stock options and giving the money to employees who then keep the money (or buy stock options).
If this happened, MS would be reporting a loss, because the money from selling stock options is investment capital, not revenue, and cash salary is an expense, though giving out stock options as salary isn't.
This is common practice, because funding your business partly with a Ponzi scheme lets you lower prices below cost, and thus outcompete competitors. If someone is doing it, everybody has to do it, or be driven out of business.
The problem is its fundamental similarity to a pyramid scheme: the ones who get in and out before the crash get rich, but an ever-expanding pool of capital must be tapped. When it reaches its limit, either by running out of new investors, or people realizing that eventually they're going to run out of new investors, it crashes. It can still go for a few years yet, though, maybe as much as a decade, before all the suckers looking for easy money, and all the retirement and college funds are tapped out. Even longer if messed up countries get their act together long enough for their citizens to accumulate real wealth to gamble on bubble stocks.
It could even lead to a third world war, if China and India decide that their citizens shouldn't hand off half the country to pay debts to foreigners who got out in time.
--