From the Motley Fool in 1999 (emphasis mine):

But not all deferred revenues are created equal. I recently came across a company for which I viewed deferred revenue as not being very meaningful. The company was X-ray device maker Hologic (Nasdaq: HOLX). In the Revenue Recognition section of the company’s financial statement footnotes, it said the following: “The Company has reserved for potential losses under these contracts by deferring revenue of an amount equal to 10% of the contracts funded.” While on the surface this seems to be conservative accounting, it’s certainly not deferred revenue that you can count on to make its way to the income statement in the future like you can with Microsoft or AOL.

From a Smart Money article in 2000 (just after the beginning of the .com shakeout) about AOL:

“The trend in backlog and deferred revenue reflects a shift to more established advertisers and is not a reflection of slowing ad/commerce momentum,” Kiggen said.

From a CNET News article in 2000:

These AOL sourpusses said the company’s ad/commerce backlog, which was flat at $3 billion, and deferred revenue, which fell, proved AOL was hurt by the dot-com implosion.

But that bearish case doesn’t hold up. For a reality check, I called William Blair analyst Abhishek Gami, who calls it straight and isn’t tangled up with the sheep crowd. Gami was surprised by the negativity from some analysts, who were obviously playing along with the market sentiment. “I’d almost call AOL a value play,” said Gami, who rates AOL a “strong buy.”

“I’d almost call AOL a value play,” said Gami, who rates AOL a “strong buy.”

In 2000.

Categories: Money
No Comments »