IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | Which is it? How come all the Baby Bells are not rolling in massive profits then? Are their intrinsic high costs which need to be recovered or are they so badly managed? | |
|
 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Which is it? Actually, they are. But remember, declared profits mean extra taxes, so, the goal is to make tons of money but look like you're only breaking even. | |
|
 | 
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Re: Which is it? said by KrK  :
Actually, they are. But remember, declared profits mean extra taxes, so, the goal is to make tons of money but look like you're only breaking even.
Conspiracy theorists crack me up... Keep 'em coming - they're great comic relief!
Adam | |
|
| | 
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Re: Which is it? How is that a conspiracy theory? It's perfectly valid business to try and minimize reported earnings in order to reduce the tax burden. There are obvious drawbacks to that strategy, but it's still a valid strategy.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
|
| | looser
join:2001-02-04
La Mesa, CA | Most sheeple like you do go right after the conspiracy stuff, but in reality you know its the truth. | |
|
| | | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Which is it? Did or did not SBC make $8 billion last year? | |
|
| | | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Re: Which is it? They made it, but that doesn't mean they get to keep it. They still have to pay every worker, heat and cool every building they own, pay creditors etc. Just like you. That was before taxes etc. | |
|
| | | | |
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Re: Which is it? No, that was after everything. Their 2003 net income was $8.5 billion after all those expenses. However that includes about $2.5 billion due to accounting changes so a more accurate number is $6B. Still, I'd say that SBC is indeed "rolling in profits".
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
|
| | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| You're mistaken. The $8 billion was before taxes but it was not before payroll, utilities or loan payments. Their gross revenue was $40 billion, from which they paid their operating expenses. Net income, after tax, was $5.9 billion.
»www.hoovers.com/sbc-communicatio···al.xhtml | |
|
| | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Which is it? Those poor, poor people. Only $5.9 billion. How will they feed their children? | |
|
| | | | | |
| |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Conspiracy Theorists?
Are you crazy? Hiding income is considered accepted business practice. Even so, because Bells are publicly traded, they must release some numbers.... which show that profits are indeed excellent. | |
|
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Which is it? SBC reported profits slipped slightly for 1Q 2004, caused by people disconnecting traditional POTS lines. However, they also reported amazing growth in DSL subscriber lines, and new Long Distance service sales to customers, so future expectations look very rosy.
Also, they apparently paid down several billion dollars in debt, which is a good thing, but makes earnings look less impressive..... (IE 5 billion in after expenses-revenue looks worse when you chose to pay an extra 3 billion out to reduce debts, and then announce only 2 billion in final revenue)
Simply put, the Bells are doing great, Thank you very much.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Which is it? They're probably part of the 60% of corps that didn't pay any taxes as well. | |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs: | Union workers and mismanagement. | |
|
jsauce
join:2002-03-07
Fitchburg, MA
| said by IanR :
How come all the Baby Bells are not rolling in massive profits then? Are their intrinsic high costs which need to be recovered or are they so badly managed?
Trust me they are. It's just they need to be able to afford those massive salaries and pensions for their CEOs and other officers of the company. They've been ganking us consumers for years and finally someone notices, much like every other company doing the same they will complain they are poor and the government will buy it. Of course the lobbyists greasing their palms helps too. | |
|
|
|
|
