|
|
Enron Mail |
Agreed 100%--call me an engineer.
Kimberly Kupiecki <kkupiecki@arpartners.com< on 09/18/2000 11:41:52 AM To: jdasovic@enron.com cc: Subject: Re: Q2 for Patten Case Hi Jeff, I think we got the jist, even if the numbers aren't perfect - guess I am still and engineer, estimations work well for me. At 08:44 AM 9/18/00, jdasovic@enron.com wrote: <No, I don't think I'd make a better accountant. But I did ask a few <questions of my accountant brother-in-law. You did a great job. I don't <know how much time I'll have, but I'll see if I can throw in a bit of text <and raise the issues. See you tonite. < < < < <Kimberly Kupiecki <kkupiecki@arpartners.com< on 09/18/2000 09:53:30 AM < <To: jdasovic@enron.com <cc: dwindham@uclink4.berkeley.edu, jjackson@haas.berkeley.edu, < jcjcal02@aol.com <Subject: Re: Q2 for Patten Case < < <Hi Jeff, < <I guess you would make a better accountant than me. Your analysis sounds <right. Feel free to make changes as fit. < <My apologies for missing out on these items. < <At 06:18 PM 9/17/00, jdasovic@enron.com wrote: < < <Hey, nice spreadsheet. Two minor questions: < < < <1) Isn't the provision for taxes on the income statement actually the <taxes < <on the 'income' they made from using the sales method (equal to 46%), < <rather than what they pay will actually pay the IRS under the installment < <method? I think the notes show how instead of paying the 4.1$ based on < <their recognized income, they pay some itty bitty amount based on < <installment. If so, I think they actually get a 46% tax break on the 1 < <million and change that they lose using a cash basis. Still a loss, just < <not so big. Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm thinking straight on this, but < <that's how I read the numbers. < < < <2) Does the balance sheet have to change a little? For example, does < <shareholder equity change since the income that goes to retained earnings < <is now a loss, rather than a gain? Also, if revenue is recognized on a < <cash basis and is now much smaller, there needs to be another liability to < <equal out the decrease in revenues with the still large notes receivables < <on the asset side (as you note in the answer the notes recievables stays < <the same). Seems like they might need a liability like "deferred profits" < <or some such thing, such that the ["deferred profits" + revenues < <(recognized on cash basis)] = notes receivables. < < < <Anyway, I may not have this right, but thought I'd bring it up to see what < <you think. < < < <Best, < <Jeff < < <Kimberly Kupiecki <Senior Account Executive <A&R Partners <kkupiecki@arpartners.com <(650) 762 2800 main <(650) 762 2825 direct <fax (650) 762 2801 Kimberly Kupiecki Senior Account Executive A&R Partners kkupiecki@arpartners.com (650) 762 2800 main (650) 762 2825 direct fax (650) 762 2801
|