3 ms·
I don't think reporting frequency matters as much as the incentives. As long as the company's required to disclose public financials, company's will ALWAYS be
by caminante 11y ago
I don't think reporting frequency matters as much as the incentives.
As long as the company's required to disclose public financials, company's will ALWAYS be tempted to manipulate earnings at the end of the fiscal year[1].
As to incentives for manipulation, Dell's infractions arguably flowed from flaws in stock option compensation and loose accounting standards.[2] Dell execs were pretty risk tolerant...leveraging up with long calls financed by short puts.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/pay-practices-that-encourage-executive-dishonesty-2012-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/pay-practices-that-encourage-...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/business/how-dell-became-entangled-in-options.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/business/how-dell-became-e...
- yuhong 11y agoI am talking about the issue of taking the payments from Intel not to use AMD in the first place.
- caminante 11y agoYou lost me.
- yuhong 11y agoFrom https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-131.htm https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-131.htm : "Without the Intel payments, Dell would have missed the EPS consensus in every quarter during this period."
- caminante 11y agoOh! Yeah...Intel had been using anti-AMD "discounts" for quite some time, dating back to 1991. Things ratcheted up in the late 90's. Giving dishonest information feeds inaccurate estimates.