PALO ALTO, Calif. - This column was published on May 30 and updated May 31.

So it turns out that the Feds believe Microsoft, like so many other companies, has been managing its earnings.

On Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly came to a settlement with Microsoft under which the software powerhouse will acknowledge the accounting no-nos it has committed, stop misbehaving, and promise to play nice in the future. (see more on the settlement.)

What makes this case so different, of course, is that Microsoft (MSFT: down $0.06 to $52.58, Research, Estimates) wasn't allegedly trying to inflate its results. According to the published accounts of the SEC's investigation -- and according to conventional wisdom on Wall Street since the mid-1990s -- Microsoft was trying to downplay its earnings. If other companies attempted to take cookies out of the jar to deposit on their bottom line (think: Network Associates under ex-CEO Bill Larson), Microsoft stands accused of dropping cookies into the jar for consumption at a later snack time.

See the news story       Microsoft talks settlement

Why in the world would a company try to make its earnings look worse than they really are? Well, when you're a monopoly, churning out what some anti-capitalists believe are obscene earnings year after year, you just might find it in your best interests to hold back a bit.

There'd be a particularly acute desire to play down success when government lawyers are crawling all over your operations to prove your monopoly power is harming other companies.

Then there's the issue of "smoothing" out performance. Jack Welch perfected the trick at General Electric. John Chambers at Cisco once had a knack for beating analyst estimates by a penny per quarter -- a function of managing Wall Street's expectations as much as anything else. If a big company like Microsoft knows PC growth is slowing, it'd certainly make sense to plan financially for a rainy day, assuming that option were open to it

"sandbag" (transitive verb): to conceal or misrepresent one's true position, potential, or intent especially in order to take advantage of

Bully for the SEC for trying to get all companies to be more straightforward about how they communicate results. But good luck stopping the practice. At issue here is far more than accounting. It's more about sandbagging, a helpful definition of which appears above, courtesy of Merriam-Webster's www.m-w.com Web site. There are all sorts of situations where business people sandbag.

When subordinates sandbag their superiors, it's called under promising and over delivering, and it's applauded. When negotiators sandbag on their intentions, it's called trying to get the best deal, and it's also to be applauded. It's when sandbagging equals lying that the legal system kicks in.

RECENTLY BY ADAM LASHINSKY       Telling tech's future Pricey stocks just got pricier Schwab gets an E for effort

An investor's job is to read through the sandbagging -- or, conversely, the over hyping -- to get a true sense of a company's worth. The SEC and other agencies can help. But only so much.

It's worth noting that Microsoft's stock is up today. Up because the market likes resolutions of outstanding litigation? Up because there's no other news? Up because trading volume is lighter than usual? Take your pick.

Adam Lashinsky is a senior writer for Fortune magazine. Send e-mail to Adam at adam_lashinsky@timeinc.com.

Sign up to receive The Bottom Line by e-mail.