| Search by tag or site | Login to my blog ▪ Start my own blog |
Financial SkepticAccentuating the caveat emptor with critical commentary concerning investor relations and financial communications. I look at how information is (mis)managed and manipulated thereby creating possible investors losses. |
Diebold Restatement Consequences & Integrity
Posted on 10/03/2007 10:35 AM | Link | Post Comment
Diebold (DBD) will change the way revenue is reported after its accounting practices came under SEC scrutiny, the company said in a press release issued Oct 2.Diebold may now record sales only after its products are delivered or installed, said spokesman Mike Jacobsen.
A quick scan of their financial statements includes this note to financial statements that defines revenue recognition.
"Revenue Recognition The company's revenue recognition policy is consistent with the requirements of Statement of Position (SOP) 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition and Staff Accounting Bulletin 104 (SAB 104). In general, the company records revenue when it is realized, or realizable and earned. The company considers revenue to be realized or realizable and earned when the following revenue recognition requirements are met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, which is a customer contract; the products or services have been provided to the customer; the sales price is fixed or determinable within the contract; and collectibility is probable. The sales of the company's products do not require production, modification or customization of the hardware or software after it is shipped."
Kudos to the SEC for finally protecting the investor. The corporate press release makes mention that while they are still figuring it out, they will have to restate previous financial reports, but do not believe that the cash position will be affected. This is universal corporate baffle gab. Investors are supposed to be quiet if the cash position does not change, everything else is not so important.
Essentially Diebold was not following its publicly stated policies. Diebold was not following accounting standards that investors should be able to rely on. KPMG the auditors in this case certified the statements when they should not have. The Board OK'ed everything. Governance! Governance! Governance!
What consequences will Diebold executives have for this inadequacy? Many in the political arena contend that their voting machines cannot count correctly. The SEC has definitively determined that the corporate accounting was not counting correctly.
Does Diebold have a corporate culture problem? With the counting thing?
A quick scan of their financial statements includes this note to financial statements that defines revenue recognition.
"Revenue Recognition The company's revenue recognition policy is consistent with the requirements of Statement of Position (SOP) 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition and Staff Accounting Bulletin 104 (SAB 104). In general, the company records revenue when it is realized, or realizable and earned. The company considers revenue to be realized or realizable and earned when the following revenue recognition requirements are met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, which is a customer contract; the products or services have been provided to the customer; the sales price is fixed or determinable within the contract; and collectibility is probable. The sales of the company's products do not require production, modification or customization of the hardware or software after it is shipped."
Kudos to the SEC for finally protecting the investor. The corporate press release makes mention that while they are still figuring it out, they will have to restate previous financial reports, but do not believe that the cash position will be affected. This is universal corporate baffle gab. Investors are supposed to be quiet if the cash position does not change, everything else is not so important.
Essentially Diebold was not following its publicly stated policies. Diebold was not following accounting standards that investors should be able to rely on. KPMG the auditors in this case certified the statements when they should not have. The Board OK'ed everything. Governance! Governance! Governance!
What consequences will Diebold executives have for this inadequacy? Many in the political arena contend that their voting machines cannot count correctly. The SEC has definitively determined that the corporate accounting was not counting correctly.
Does Diebold have a corporate culture problem? With the counting thing?
- Countrywide: Time To Look At The Board
- Gm Veba; Investors Need To Pay Attention
- Axa Research What Is This?
- Ldk Encircled By Wolves
- Bain Submits To Foreign Security Review But Will Investors Benefit
- Oct 2007
- Sep 2007
- Aug 2007
- Jul 2007
- Jun 2007
- May 2007
- Apr 2007
- Mar 2007
- Feb 2007
- Jan 2007
- Dec 2006
- Nov 2006
- Oct 2006
- Sep 2006
- Aug 2006
- Jul 2006
![]()
Examples
Morpheus Trading - Mon Jul 21, 2008 08:33AM
NOTE: Please click on the charts below to enlarge them if [read more]
NOTE: Please click on the charts below to enlarge them if [read more]
Morpheus Trading - Mon Jul 21, 2008 08:31AM
NOTE: Please click on the charts below to enlarge them i [read more]
NOTE: Please click on the charts below to enlarge them i [read more]
Millionaire Now! by Larry Nusbaum - Tue Jul 22, 2008 09:23AM
Hedge funds have made billions this year shorting the banks, [read more]
Hedge funds have made billions this year shorting the banks, [read more]












<< My Home | TheMoneyBlogs Home