Red Hat results kicks rump, takes names (Linux-Watch)
Red Hat Inc. on Dec. 21 announced its financial results for its fiscal year 2007 third quarter. The Raleigh, NC-based Linux company's numbers were, in a word, great. The total revenue for the quarter was $105.8 million, an increase of 45 percent from the year-ago quarter and 6 percent from the prior quarter. Subscription revenue was $88.9 million, up 48 percent year-over-year and 5 percent sequentially."
Posted Dec 22, 2006 22:30 UTC (Fri)
by zealot (guest, #37421)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Dec 22, 2006 23:05 UTC (Fri)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link] (2 responses)
In fact, Red Hat's FY2007 is the year ending at the end of February 2007.
Posted Dec 23, 2006 17:16 UTC (Sat)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 24, 2006 19:08 UTC (Sun)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link]
Posted Dec 22, 2006 23:07 UTC (Fri)
by hp (guest, #5220)
[Link]
I assume these figures refer to the fiscal year 2006 third quarter, not Red Hat results kicks rump, takes names (Linux-Watch)
the fiscal year 2007 third quarter, unless it it is common in financial
sectors to refer to dates in a completely deranged way ;)
It's actually common in financial sectors to refer to dates in a completely deranged way. At least, corporations routinely use financial years that don't align with calendar years (late December is a bad time to expect to get your year-end paperwork, or anything else, done). And once you have a financial year 2007 that isn't entirely in calendar year 2007, it's a bit arbitrary which way it's off and by how much. (Also, different corporations use different financial years, so that they aren't all trying to get their consultants to produce documents at the same time.) This is all very painful if you're trying to do software that reports on quarters or financial years, but it's one of those things you have to deal with. Of course, official filings tend to list things as "The quarter ending November 30, 2006" or "The financial year ending February 28, 2007", so that people outside the company aren't always looking up the company's calendar.Red Hat results kicks rump, takes names (Linux-Watch)
It is customary for corporate fiscal years to overlap to some extent (like at least a week or two) with calendar years. I'm not sure that it's really a requirement. :-)Red Hat results kicks rump, takes names (Linux-Watch)
I think when I was writing software that dealt with this, we had a test case for having the quarter that includes January 1st, 2002 be 6 quarters after Q1 2002. I don't think we had an example of a company with this financial year, but I was told that I couldn't count on it. IIRC, there's some rationale for large offsets for companies with long lead times on income, where they get paid in 2007 for work mostly done in 2005. I think it's also rare for financial years to be behind calendar years by any amount (so January 1, 2007 is rarely part of FY 2006 or FY 2008).Red Hat results kicks rump, takes names (Linux-Watch)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_yearRed Hat results kicks rump, takes names (Linux-Watch)
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2006/earnings_...