The treatment of the NEC income by the company is not credible. The company got the previous negligent auditors to agree to the accounting method, and then changed auditors after the AA had signed off. No logical explanation was put forward for the accounting treatment afforded to the income. I beleive that all accountants on this and other boards were of the same or similar opinions.
Regarding the Ericy treatment, what is being discussed is the treatment of income within the context of essentially management unaudited accounts.
The correct treatment should have been, to take all arrears of income relating to 2002 and prior years and treat that income as an exceptional item in the quarterly accounts. The quaterly accounts should have been produced on the basis of actual figures that were generated in the quarter. The EPS should have been shown on the basis of profit earned or lost in the quarter, the additional income should then have been added, but EPS should not have been computed imo.
If one looks at the written explanation given by CFO of the company, essentially he is giving the same information as above but in a most long winded and convoluted manner. One would want to be familar with accounting procedures to understand what fagan had to say. i beleive the company could have made thisngs a lot clearer if it really wanted to do so.
AMS
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
