Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes! I "know"!! It's tough to have "PAY-SHUNTS" when you're SOOOOO "broke" that you can't "SEE" straight to "PAY ATTEN-SHUN"!!!
Isn't that what I said?!: I "CHEERED UP" --- and 'THEY' GOT "W O R S E"!!!
Cheer up 'TREEPLANT' --- 'things' could be "worse"!
I "CHEERED UP" --- and ... 'they' got "W O R S E"!!!
Thank you, Doug!
'joe smith1':
Do NOT feel bad!
IF you had turned out to be right --- YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN A 'HE-RO'!
And you were NOT wrong: You saw a CON-flict, tried to RE-"solve" it by your-self first and, when you couldn't, you threw it out to the rest of us TRYING TO GET "ANSWERS"!
Even if you hadn't tried to RE-"solve" it by your-self first due to 'time' --- YOU WERE NOT "WRONG"! So don't let any other ... tell you --- make you feel --- that you were! OKAY!!!???
This is part of "RIGHT CHARACTER BUILDING" --- which few care about --- to stand A-"LONE"!
ACTUALLY!: You did the other IHUB board members a "favour": By getting them EX-cited you may have helped their 'bad cholesterol' get cleaned out of their arterial system! (And other 'parts'!)
Could we say that Mark should have clarified all of this before-hand?! Possibly. But with his RE-sponsibilities and what he's trying to do --- HE'S ALL 'WAYS' IN A CATCH-22!!!
So these type of things will occur, shortening our lives as STARK "FEAR" and "DOUBT" TAKE HOLD!!!
STAY WITH "IT"!!! Okay!?
Now for the next step --- okay?!
Is that a CON-cept?! Or a PRE-cept!?
I don't think that ANY 'one' of us has ALL 'the time in the world'! (At least --- NOT YET!!!)
If you 'always' carry it in your portfolio --- does that mean that you 'live for-ever'?!
A 'trader' is a short(er) term 'investor' --- and an 'investor' is a long(er) term 'trader'.
SP moving UP --- THAT'S WHAT "TALKS" to me....
Mebbe that's why it's a: "GROSS" amount.
Holding for a-"while" could be a problem if 'they' crash the markets like the 1929 second down-leg! (That 'some' are EX-pecting!)
If this is in response to #69767, I don't understand your question.
How-ever: If this in reply to #69769, I DE-cided to leave "ADJESTMENTS". (Okay?!)
I stopped drinking 'cauffee' years ago --- drains the adrenals!
(Internet search)
If I don't 'have' a walk --- can I "take" a walk!?
And if I "clear the cob-webs" --- WILL THEY MAKE A MOVIE CALLED "SPIDER"???!!!
But if YOU 'clear the cob-webs' --- MAY-BE THEY'll MAKE A MOVIE CALLED "SPY-DUH"!!!???
As far as the 'valuation report' goes, at some point a "value judgement" should be made (along with a "reserve", or simply use a low number). THEN MOVE FOR-WARD!!!
Holding up/DE-laying "audited financials" time and time again becomes NON-"sense"! If after being RE-"leased" other adjustments become necessary, so be it --- HANDLE THEM THEN!!!
As far as "opening numbers" for the TDGI 'shell' --- the same thing applies. Start with SOME "THING" (after ALL of this 'time')
--- AND GO FROM THERE!!! WITH FUTURE "ADJESTMENTS"/"NOTES" as may be-come necessary!!!
-----------------------------
I typed "ADJESTMENTS" at first (in "error") and was going to change it to what I meant as: "ADJUSTMENTS".
But then I "thought" that may-be they'll make a movie called:
"ADD-JEST-MEANTS". So I DE-cided to leave it.
Try "children".
'Kids' are baby goats that jump around on all fours and go 'bleat'! 'Bleat'!! 'Bleat'!!!
You "see"?!: Maybe HH will make/distribute a movie called 'KIDS'!
What are YOU gonna "look" for!?
Better to be PRO-fessional than CON-fessional!
I take that as a COM-PLI-MEANT --- and not as a CON-pli-meant.
Isn't it A-"mazing" just how the 'language' "talks" to US!?
Any-"way" --- possibly SRSR will "TALK" to US --- "SOON"!!!....
'learner1156' you are correct. I thought that I had posted the following earlier, but I just don't have the time to RE-"check" B-4 "SHabbâth" --- so here it is (again?):
From: Issuer Services (issuers@otcmarkets.com)
Sent: Fri 7/08/11 9:06 AM [PT]
To: 'Jerry'
Jerry,
Yes, we go by fiscal date.
Best regards,
Ed McCann
Issuer and Information Services
304 Hudson Street 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10013-1015
T +1 (212) 896-4471
edward@otcmarkets.com
From: Jerry
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:54 AM [PT]
To: Issuer Services
Subject: SRSR - Sarissa Resources
Ed McCann:
Just double-checking your reply to someone else:
How is SRSR's "...last financial report ... over 6 months old so they no longer qualify for Limited Information"?:
The last financial report was published on 2011-04-11.
Do you go by 'fiscal date' or 'publication date'? (It looks like 'fiscal date'.)
Thank you,
Jerry
I thank all of those who have "PAIN"-stakingly PRO-vided PRO-per DD over the years.
Thanks.
It isn't 'missing' --- it hasn't been reported yet.
I was going by the original 'Adv & Prom' question which also led into the Q1-Q4 reports, that's why I answered the way that I did.
If my last few posts haven't clarified these things, please let me know.
Also 'jackfrost', the 3Q is clearly reported within the 9-month report ended 2010-09-30:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=41662
Therefore, the Y ended 2010-12-31 DOES include/show the 4Q.
The report you noted that 'we' are waiting for is/will be the Q1 of 2011.
Thanks.
I saw the 4Q numbers embedded in the Y2010 report, that's why I said what I said.
Isn't SRSR on a 'calendar' fiscal year? Or is its fiscal year different?
See pages 3 and 4 for the '3-month periods':
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=47662
Merle wasn't really answering "the audit question" with the "simple as heck". He was actually stating that "the new guy" would include 'Adv & Prom' as a line item as part of the "higher standard" (of reporting).
He actually ignored "the audit question" then.
However, please also see post #103240 on "the audit question".
To answer your question --- and for many of us --- I just got back on the Internet and read the following in reverse order:
From: Jerry
Sent: Fri 7/08/11 8:40 PM [PT]
To: Merle Goertz (merleg@shaw.ca)
Thank you for your follow-up --- this way, as I share with the other stockholders/IHUB board-members, it's all out in the open.
Have a nice one.
------------------------------------------------------------
From: merleg@shaw.ca
To: [ Jerry ]
Subject: Re: SRSR Advertising & Promotion for 2010
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:17:31 -0700 [PT]
I rarely read Ihub but took a look today.
When the company puts out audited financials it will be very clear to everyone that they are audited.
The financials have not been audited.
------------------------------------------------------------
'Peat' and RE-'peat': The Financials have NOT been "audited"!
By the way --- "heck" is also part of that ""higher" standard", as you can "see" BE-"low" (again, latest first):
From: Merle Goertz (merleg@shaw.ca)
Sent: Fri 7/08/11 9:24 AM [PT]
To: Jerry
Simple as heck. A "higher standard" is that the new guy is including that line item.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry
To: Merle Goertz
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:19 AM [PT]
Subject: RE: SRSR Advertising & Promotion for 2010
Hi again, Merle:
Just to keep you busy and out of 'trouble' (haha) --- would you please clarify the following:
So, what is meant by reporting at a higher standard?
I observed in the NI continuous disclosure requirements that the financials require a disclaimer if they have not been reviewed by an auditor.
If you look back to previous quarters, you will see this disclaimer, but more recently this disclaimer is absent.
Therefore, I presume that the last few quarters that did not carry this disclaimer means that these unaudited financials had been reviewed by an auditor.
So, what constitutes a higher standard than unaudited financials that are reviewed by an auditor, if that "higher" standard is not now audited?
----------------------------------------------------
Thank you,
Jerry (again)
Actually I've been an observer for at least two years, with a modest holding.
What prompted me to 'sign up' was that on another IHUB board a person posted a number of times some very nice Tech. Anal. and got ridiculed by others for his efforts. I think that he was/is "mature" enough to let it bounce off him, but I finally signed up to put in a word of EN-"COURAGE"-MEANT.
Also, on this board there is at least one who has gone through many criticisms for simply posting what his "knowledge" showed him
--- and, I've learned that, even if I don't agree, at least "weigh the message". Superficial criticism really helps no one.
This will possibly answer a number of posts within the last 10 numbers or so:
There really is no missing Q4 report since it is within the 2010Y report.
Also, I emailed Merle on the Adv & Prom question(s) and here are the back-and-forth [as well as 'fifth'] replies (latest first) as follows:
From: Merle Goertz (merleg@shaw.ca)
Sent: Fri 7/08/11 7:42 AM [PT]
Jerry,
1st, all these are unaudited financials and have a different standard then audited financials.
There was a new person that took over the responsibility as of the April 11, 2011 report and we are now reporting at a "higher" standard then previously.
Merle
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry
To: Merle Goertz
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:30 AM [PT]
Subject: RE: SRSR Advertising & Promotion for 2010
Yr 2010: http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=47662
Q4 2010: Included in Yr 2010, above.
Q3 2010: http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=41662
Q2 2010: http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=37040
Q1 2010: http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=33459
Possibly re-classified to/from other items?
Thank you for clarifying.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: merleg@shaw.ca
To: [top and bottom secret]
Subject: Re: SRSR Advertising & Promotion for 2010
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 06:54:23 -0700 [PT]
Send me a link to what you document you are referring.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry
To: Merle Goertz
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 1:15 AM [PT]
Subject: SRSR Advertising & Promotion for 2010
An observant person noticed that Ad & Prom for 2010 was 358,832 while the Q4 number was 21,613.
This leaves 337,219 to have shown up in the Q1-Q3 quarters.
However, apparently Q1-Q3 don't show any Ad & Prom.
We would appreciate an answer.
Thanks,
Jerry
==========================================================
As Merle noted above, there is a "new person" handling the
financial preparation and reporting, and this tells me that it can take time to work out differences and/or clarify CON-sistencies to make them PRO-sistencies.
Is this of any help?
Thank you.
'jpp09' was actually saying that the "Advertising & promotion 4Q - $21,613 1yr - $358,832". Then if [he goes] back to [the] Q1-Q3 financials [he doesn't] see advertising and promotion as an expense.
That is: If the year figure is 358,832, and the 4Q is 21,613, then there should be 337,219 showing up in the Q1-Q3 quarters.
Very "observant" --- 'jpp09'. It deserves an "answer". I suggest that you email Merle.
Thank you 'dmlabuda'. I have seen many of your posts, and I really appreciate them regardless as to what some may comment or ridicule.
Please don't stop.