Slashdot Mirror
Did Microsoft Alter Windows Sales Figures?
Saxophonist writes "InformationWeek claims to have analyzed Microsoft's most recent Form 10-Q and observed that a reported increase in earnings for the Windows unit may be due to accounting trickery rather than actual sales growth. Microsoft apparently increased its reported revenues for its Windows, Server & Tools, and Office units at least partly through shifting revenues from other units. While there may be nothing 'to suggest the company's revisions violate any accounting rules,' the actual growth in Windows sales was likely nowhere near the high double-digit percentage growth claimed. InformationWeek speculates that revenues from Xbox and Surface may have been among the revenues shifted to the other divisions."
I thought pretty much every publicly traded company did stuff like this?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I'm hoping it's shuffling deck chairs on the Hindenberg - it will be more fun to watch.
But see, that's the beauty of corporate accounting. They never actually lie, it's all a matter of classifying revenue sources and sinks in brain-twisting ways that are technically accurate, even though from a bird's-eye view they give a completely mistaken impression of what's going on.
And this isn't consigned to Microsoft, like an above commenter said, every Fortune 500 company has done it to varying extents. It's difficult to make illegal, too, because there's no one technique used (seems to be as much an art as it is a science, finding loopholes that aren't closed); so it's impossible to write a law that's general enough to stop the practice yet still enforceable.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
The first guy says, "4".
The mgr thanked him for his time and dismissed him because he was too honest. Then he called the second guy in. "What's 2+2?", he asked again.
"5" was the response.
He was thanked and rejected because he was incompetent, The manager then asked the third accountant in. "What's 2+2?"
The third accountant answered, "What do you want it to be?"
He was hired on the spot.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I think it's turning out more like shuffling governors in the Ottoman or British Empires. A slow, gradual, slightly-pathetic decline as one setback overshadows another.
Except of course that people are using these numbers to do something important.
And this isn't just an idle problem: There have been colleges, pension funds, charitable foundations, and retirees crippled financially for decades because they looked at companies like Enron which were generating good consistent returns and decided that it was a good investment. This stuff does real damage to people, and the SEC simply doesn't have the resources to stop it.
I am officially gone from
Well look at it this way - they aren't fudging their balance sheets as bad as the US Government
Interesting quote:
The spokesperson said some of the changes were the result of embedded systems products being moved from EDD to Server & Tools and Mac Office's move from EDD to the Business unit after Bach left.
For many years, Mac Office revenue was counted towards Entertainment and Device Division. I've always thought that was rather strange that it wasn't part of the Microsoft Business Division where it belonged. MS might have organized revenue based on the executive in charge which is normal. But also it could be that MS was trying to soften the massive losses of the Xbox first seven years.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There isn't anything particularly brain twisting here, and I'm not sure what mistaken impression the revisions discussed in the article are supposed to create (before the revisions, the quarterly net income for the entire company is $5.4 billion on revenues of $16.2 billion, after the revisions it is exactly the same, most businesses would kill to be that profitable, and they would kill their mothers to have the 'billion' in those numbers).
Here's what you are missing: Everyone expects Microsoft to be highly profitable in their core business, and investors are used to the sad fact that Microsoft wastes a billion here and there on things like buying revenue for Ping. So if the losses in the online division grow, or XBox doesn't as well as expected, nobody cares much because the main business is safe as ever. All those losses in online can be stopped any second by just leaving that business area, if Microsoft wants, so it's nothing to worry about.
But if Microsoft makes less money in Windows, Office, or Server, or if it is found out that it props up its main business by moving money from other areas, that is a very, very bad sign and investors would be quite unhappy.
Obvious retort: You can't handle the truth.
This brilliant parody has been floating around for quite a while, author unknown (I found it at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraudenron.htm )
A take-off from the movies "A Few Good Men" (Some phrases are in the original script and some are altered.)
Tom Cruise: "Did you order the shredding?"
Jack Nicholson: "You want answers?"
Tom Cruise: "I think I'm entitled."
Jack Nicholson: "You want answers!!"
Tom Cruise: "I want the truth!"
Jack Nicholson: "You can't handle the truth!"
Jack Nicholson: "Son, we live in a world that has financial statements. And those financial statements have to be audited by men with calculators. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Dept. of Justice? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Enron and you curse Andersen. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Enron's death, while tragic, probably saved investors. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves investors. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that audit. You need me on that audit! We use words like materiality, risk-based, special purpose entity...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent auditing something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very assurance I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a pencil and start ticking. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!!"
Tom Cruise: "Did you order the shredding???"
Jack Nicholson: "You're damn right I did!"
So the company lies/misstates/whatever to make the core businesses look better and prop up the stock.
And the, by some coincidence, monkey boy sells a billion or two of stock.
Move along. Nothing to see here.........
Actually, they didn't. Even a basic check, like reading the press release, tells you what they did.
Infoweek made at best a gaffe. They took the figures for the 3 months ended 30 Sept 2009 originally stated and compared them to the 30 Sept 2010 figures recently released, even though right beside those 2010 figures are the 30 Sept 2009 figures updated to reflect the new accounting policy.
Calculating using the figures sitting side-by-side, this change in policy does not distort growth. This what accounting rules require (at least under IFRS, I can't imagine US GAAP does differently), and why. MS also used the revised policy in the %'s given in the press release, so they are both under the same policies. Nowhere in the PR does MS refer to the faulty figures Infoweek is complaining about. Infoweek's article is all about them realising that they were using the wrong figures but not realising that it was due to their own mistake.
For Infoweek to compare against the wrong figures they had to ignore the comparatives given right there in a spreadsheet file given by MS and instead go find an old file, and ignore the prominent disclosure given to the change in the press release that provides the link to the filing:
In addition, we have recast certain prior period amounts within our Form 10-Q that conforms to the way we internally managed and monitored segment performance during the current fiscal year.
As for the deferral of income from Vista sales with W7 upgrade packs, that follows accounting rules too (well, assuming they calculated it properly). Regardless, the entire second paragraph is dedicated to explaining the impact of the accounting rule and even removing it to show the underlying performance:
Prior year results reflect the deferral of $1.47 billion of revenue, an impact of $0.12 of diluted earnings per share, relating to the Windows 7 Upgrade Option program and sales of Windows 7 to OEMs and retailers before general availability in October 2009. Without the deferral in the prior year, first-quarter growth rates for revenue and operating income were 13% and 20%, and growth in net income and earnings per share were 16% and 19%, respectively.
Oh and there's reconciliations and everything in the accompanying slides. Infoweek's "exclusive" refers to their mistake regarding policy changes that were very prominently disclosed.
I know MS isn't exactly celebrated around here, but posting this kind of thing detracts considerably from the credibility of the more valid criticisms.