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.
That's my last response to you on this
Thank you.
Danno123: I agree with you. I will also not post my holdings for the same reason.
I think this is simply the case of a legitimate company with an overzealous CEO who was excited about his company. He got overextended and fudged some numbers and got caught by the SEC. I probably won’t sell immediately when the suspension ends because I think there is a possibility of some recovery. If any of what I think is true, then JP should come clean as soon as possible and get it behind him so that he can move on.
Possible, I don't know that I believe that.
I would still argue that it is misleading accouting and calls into doubt the contract. The contract and AR are both listed in the SEC complaint.
Thank you. I will.
I did. It doesn't matter. The cat is already out of the bag and the financials are already in the public domain. They made a mistake releasing both sets. The can't now say "just kidding, we didn't really mean it."
Right but...
June 2006 they show 25 million in sales and 19 million in AR.
End of year they show 31 million in sales and 18 million in AR.
That means during the second half of the year they had an addition 6 million in sales above the 25 million. Their AR went down 1 million. Even if every penny of the 6 million additional sales went to AR that still leaves around 12 million left over from the first half that are now over 180 days old. This casts doubt on the 25 million contract.
You brought up some good observations with the utilities, cell phone, etc.
as far as:
>Others have mentioned that it's odd that you would have 25 mil in sales and 19 mil in A/R but on an accrual statement, which this is, if you sell a box for $1000 and you get paid a $100 deposit, you book a $1000 sale and $900 accounts receivable.
We don't have a problem with receivables per se. The problem is that looking at both sets of statements it appears we have around 12 million that are over 180 days old. That may be a problem.
Yes, all three...lol. AF's may be the only thing that will explain what is going on.
This is from an earlier post I made.
Jim gets a 25 million dollar contract from someone doing business with the government. He books the whole contract as income and books the other end as accounts receivable. This much should be obvious from the June financials. They show 19 million in receivables and 25 million in sales. Apparently he did collect some money.
Now, here it is 6 months later and we have new financials for the whole year of 2006. We show 31 million in sales and 18 million in receivables. We have an additional 6 million in sales for the second half of the year and we have reduced our receivables by 1 million. Even if all of this 6 million goes to receivables, that leaves 11 or 12 million in receivables left over from the first half of the year. These receivables are now over 180 days old. I think this calls into question the 25 million contract.
We also have the 12 million in retained earnings that was not on the june statements and then appeared on the end of year statements.
Like you, I hope there is an explanation or I am just wrong.
I too think this could all get interesting...eom
IMO, even if they could, they need the audited financials for the investment community. They have taken a hit to their credibility and the AF's would be the first step to repairing it.
We don’t.The problem is that the 12 million in receivables that are more than 180 days old implies that either the third party is not paying us or we or not delivering. IMO, this was one of the big red flags for the SEC.
roerules: I agree, I was just offering hope...lol
roerules: No, not much. At the very least I think we may have to take a 12 million write down of sales for 2006. If we do, then that would put us around even for the year. The bright spot might be that maybe the rest of that contract will fill in 2007 along with any new sales. This could pull out by the end of 2007. I don't have a problem waiting that long.
That was my guess also. I think it will come in between 1 to 1.5 billion.
I ignored mine also.
Windship
Not only the equity section but they also possibly have 12 million or more in receivables that are over 180 days old which casts doubt on the 25 million dollar contract. I think they may have to end up reducing sales for the year and reclassing the retained earnings number.
I have shares here too.
It's not just a glitch. They have 12 million in receivables that are over 180 days old. That calls the whole 25 million contract into question because that means that either someone is not paying us or we are not delivering. That is why the SEC is here. They want to know that contract that has been PR'd for months now is correct. Is it? I don't know either.
News!! Some real numbers!
Ignis Barnett Shale Drills Seven Wells and Increases Net Production by 24%
Friday February 9, 10:12 am ET
DALLAS, TX--(MARKET WIRE)--Feb 9, 2007 -- Ignis Petroleum Group, Inc. (OTC BB:IGPG.OB - News) today provided the following operations and production update.
St. Jo Ridge (Barnett Shale) Field
Our program with W. B. Osborn Oil & Gas Operations ("WBO") to develop the field located in Montague and Cooke Counties, Texas is progressing. WBO owns 55% of the working interest and Ignis Barnett Shale, LLC ("IBS"), a partnership owned by Ignis Petroleum Group, Inc. and Silver Point Capital, owns 45%. The following are selected highlights:
-- As of the effective date, June 1, 2006, there were 14 producing wells.
-- Since June 1, 2006, we drilled and completed 7 wells and now have 21
wells producing oil and gas. In addition, we have one well drilling and
one well awaiting completion.
-- Net production to IBS's position averaged 92 barrels of oil per day
(Bopd) and 722 thousand cubic feet of gas per day (Mcfd) in the fourth
quarter compared with 64 Bopd and 641 Mcfd in the third quarter, an
increase of 24% on a barrel of oil equivalent basis.
-- IBS also derives revenue from its 45% ownership in the 26-mile gas
gathering and treating system, which transports third-party gas in the
area. Gross throughput to the plant increased to an average 3,679 Mcfd in
the fourth quarter compared with 3,445 Mcfd in the third quarter, a 7%
increase.
-- To date, we have drilled two horizontal wells with one well presently
producing oil and gas and one well in completion. A third horizontal well
is presently being drilled. During 2007, we plan to drill a total of three
vertical and eight horizontal wells, utilizing the Pioneer Drilling Company
#39 drilling rig which we have on continuous contract.
-- We recently completed the purchase of additional working interest in
the Meador Ranch lease (721 gross acres) to increase our working interest
to 22% from 11%. This acquisition included production from three existing
wells.
Acom-A6 Well
-- The well located in Chambers County, Texas, is currently delivering an
average of 195 Bopd and 428 Mcfd in gross production. Through the end of
2006, the well produced approximately 78,000 gross barrels of oil and
268,000 gross Mcf of gas.
-- The well began producing water in early October 2006, but has
maintained a steady 50% water cut through the end of the year. Flowing
tubing pressure remains high at around 1,775 psi. Upon depletion of the
currently producing interval, several additional prospective zones behind
pipe will be considered for testing.
-- Ignis Petroleum Group, Inc. owns a 25% working interest in the well in
which Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is the operator.
Sherburne Prospect
-- The Sherburne Field development prospect, located in Point Coupee
Parish, Louisiana, is still undergoing testing.
-- Drilling was completed in September 2006 after which pipe was set, and
two intervals of interest were tested with non-commercial indications of
gas.
-- The partners are currently considering an initiative to perforate and
test another prospective interval, the 9,400' sand. This interval appears
to have some water saturation from log analysis, but has produced a large
volume of natural gas historically from a number of wells in the area.
-- Ignis has a 15% before payout working interest in the well in which
Rodessa Operating Company is the operator.
Barnett Shale Wells
-- The Inglish Sisters #3 well located in Cooke County, Texas continues
to operate and has produced approximately 5,600 gross barrels of oil and 44
gross million cubic feet of gas from the Barnett Shale since coming on-line
last year.
-- Two additional wells, the Powell #1 and Powell #2 have been drilled
and completed but have not yet produced in commercial quantities. Ignis is
investigating what our options may be in regard to these wells.
-- The Company has a 12.5% working interest in the wells in which Rife
Energy Operating, Inc. is the operator.
About Ignis Petroleum
Ignis Petroleum Group, Inc. is a Dallas-based oil and gas production company focused on exploration, acquisition and development of crude oil and natural gas reserve in the United States. The Company's management has closely aligned itself with strategic industry partnerships and is building a diversified energy portfolio. It focuses on prospects that result from new lease opportunities, new technology and new information. For further information, visit www.ignispetro.com.
Yes it is but if you look at the statements they show the 12 million net profit for the period in the capital section along with 12 million in retained earnings. The question is where did the retained earnings come from. They were not on the June statements. Maybe they had 12 million in retained earnings coming into 2006 and just forgot to put them on the June statements. It may be possible that they had made 12 million before 2006 but I didn't think so. We really need audited financials.
Cyber: If that is true then I am back with Danno123 on the advertising cost.
Danno123: Yes, I guess that is right. I would sure like to see what made up that number.
I used to work for a guy that everytime we hired someone he would call them contract labor to advoid paying employment taxes. I kept telling him that it would eventually bite him. Finally, he let someone go and they went to file for unemployment. Guess what, we hadn't payed any. My boss got into a bit of trouble needless to say.
Yes, I think they should.
Danno123: I was thinking that also. One possibilty I wonder about is the 400,000 in consulting. Maybe some of the ad development might be there. I wonder if audited financials have notes accompying them that explain amounts that might seem a little out of place?
IMO, You are also right. In an earlier post I said that I believe the SEC was here because of issues with the financial statements. IMO, the issues with the accounting statements came about because Jim was selling stock and tried to hide it.
You are right. My bad. I will watch that from now own.
Prove it's not. The only thing that can prove anything is audited financial statements. Sorry about not putting IMO. I will next time.
Absolutely, they are trying to sell product. They just needed some money to pay for those ads so they sold some stock first.
I don't think this is a scam either. I think it is case where the CEO was excited about his company and tried to do too much too fast and got overextended. He made some unfortunate choices in how he handled it. There is nothing illegal about him selling stock to raise money but the problem is I think he tried to hide it and lied to us about it. I really think he believed he could cover before he got caught.
It is the only thing that does make sense. CKYS can prove us wrong with audited finacials and that is the only way.
Yes, I am in the same boat and at the same point.
I really believe that Jim's intention was to sale stock to raise needed capital. He then hid it under retained earnings and thought he could collect some money and buy the stock back before he had to release audited financials. He just went to far and got caught. Instead of coming clean with the investors he tried to hide it. That is why he kept saying "soon" on the audited finacials. They would show this.
I think that this was a business and did have sales but I really would like to know what happened to the receivables.
I think it was posted earler that he would report later today or this evening.
Thanks, I just wished I had acted on my feeling sooner. There are just to many little things that don't quite add up.
I think Jim sold stock to raise money, hid it under retained earnings thinking he could collect on some receivables, buy the stock back and none would be the wiser. He just got caught.
Ok, forget the share structure, how abut this scenario.
Jim gets a 25 million dollar contract from someone doing business with the government. He books the whole contract as income and books the other end as accounts receivable. This much should be obvious from the June financials. They show 19 million in receivables and 25 million in sales. Apparently he did collect some money.
Now, here it is 6 months later and we have new financials for the whole year of 2006. We show 31 million in sales and 18 million in receivables. We have an additional 6 million in sales for the second half of the year and we have reduced our receivables by 1 million. Even if all of this 6 million goes to receivables, that leaves 11 or 12 million in receivables left over from the first half of the year. These receivables are now over 180 days old. How many businesses can survive this without bringing in money from somewhere else?
Where did the money to operate come from? Where did the magic 12 million retained earnings come from? Why are half our receivables over 180 days old? Why was our AS quietly raised to 3 billion?
That folks, IMO, is why the SEC is here!
I saw the red flags and ignored them unfortunatly. I was uneasy about Jim raising the AS to 3 billion without saying anything. He didn't acknowledge it until the stockholders called him on it and then his PR didn't really explain anything.
I have been looking at the finacials also and agree. In particular, I find the magically appearing 12 million retained earnings a bit odd. I was thinking the same as you, maybed it is really more stock sales booked as retained earnings. It might help explain bumping the AS to 3 billion without telling anyone.
Hasher5...
Are you hear to perform an occular inspection of this situation...lol
Do you ever feel like you are talking to a fence post.
Alphatrade L2 shows last trade 40000 .026 @11:40
Thats right. They need to use that money to get those two rigs in and fired up reworking wells. They have so much potential with their leases.
I am here for the oil also. I always thought the other stuff was just extra gravy but my main interest was the potiential of the oil leases. I will continue to hold.
You better get a big one! According to Seinfeld, when all of us BIGN shareholders retire we have to move to Florida and when we do we are all going to want to go out on your yacht.