No of course not. The liability of cooking the books is probably so huge they wouldn't dare. Nor am I accusing them of that. My only observations are: a) PR beat the accountants on this one. Calling a $23m operational loss a $120m profit is cool, if you can get away with it. Judging by the market reaction and their stock price, they did get away with it. And, b) it is unfortunate they weren't specific about what non-GAAP measures allowed them to do this. Just because it is non-GAAP doesn't mean it is illegal at all. It is just different than the norm. It makes me curious as to why they would do this (other than marketing and PR, that's obvious). And being a curious guy I am interested in the specifics. I am not accusing them of anything, it really is nothing more than curiosity. It is unusual, and I want to know why!

(As a point of reference, I work for a company that often reports both GAAP and non-GAAP numbers. But when we report non-GAAP, it is perfectly transparent where the differences are, and we usually disclose why the non-GAAP numbers are relevant, in our opinion. I don't pursue a lot of quarterly reports, but the few that I recall with non-GAAP numbers included tend to more clarity than AC provided.)