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 assumes that Kent or his "employees" will actually occupy the office.
Kent can run his "cloud" business from...oh, maybe the defendant's table?
LOL indeed. I'd say the $ 4+ million annual revenue projection is more of a stretch.
Look for that long term accounting firm to disavow any participation in the preparation of those financials.
It's not just TenKay's opinion. It would be the opinion of anyone who knows anything about accounting including LP&S.
It's possible, I suppose, that Kent paid for construction of the building (although 2 of the walls are shared with neighboring units so that's a bit sticky). In that case he (or ORT...we really don't know) did this with the understanding that he'd have the right to occupy for 10 years. After 10 years what happens? Is there a guaranteed renewal with a predetermined increase or can the underlying landowner say "Thanks for the building, Kent-o. See ya!" ??
And what right (if any) does Kent have to use the parking lot? That would be covered in some sort of lease arrangement or an easement.
But they are being defended
I am familiar with accounting for private companies. The section of the Statement of Cash Flows as it relates to various public company activities (paid in capital items specifically) are above my pay grade. These capital numbers appear to have been used to just "make things balance" but I dunno.
The notes to the financial statements refer to assets that were "relinquished" and long term debt that was "extinguished."
The Statement of Cash Flows shows a "Decrease in long term debt" of 1,016,087 and "Disposal of property, plant and equipment" of 1,002,610. If the notes are correct (and who knows if they are) and these were "relinquished" and "extinguished" then there isn't any cash flow implication, no?
And yet these amounts are on the Statements of Cash Flows.
Maybe we should stop giving Kent pointers??
FWIW, the statement of cash flows shows an increase in A/R for the "Benefits Management platform" of $ 1.3 million yet the Balance Sheet shows that increase as only $ 1 million.
FUBAR indeed.
And infinitely more optimistic.
That's what she said.
Isn't that house held in the name of a trust? Maybe to shield from creditors???
Gotta wonder if some SUTI shareholders will be "waiting for" Looter upon his release.
Sometimes what the government does to someone is the least of their worries...government has rules.
You don't see it because it's an entirely made up number.
In the 3rd quarter the Company supposedly sold a valuable asset for over 2 million dollars. For some unexplained reason the Income Statement only shows half of that revenue. But the big boner here is that some seem to think that because they sold the asset once, they can sell the asset for the next 3 quarters as well.
In my world, once an asset is sold you can sell it three more times.
As for any anticipated revenue from the insurance companies, take that with a grain of salt. One of the Company's contracts was signed over a year ago and has yet to generate a dime of revenue.
Add to these facts the idea that the guy who personally owned the $ 2 million asset transferred it and the rest of his business to this pinky shell and received nothing in return. Actually, he did receive a billion shares but he gave the back so now he owns 0 shares.
Make sense?
Or maybe Kent used a typewriter and, rather than re-do the entire document from scratch, he grabbed his bottle of WITE-OUT and did a patch job.
Used to do that all the time...in the 1970s.
And his CEOs have been known to post under a variety of iHub profiles -- usually pretending to be someone who has no affiliation with the Company.
But since Kent said he doesn't even know what iHub is (the Rolodex on his desk would be consistent with his discomfort with technology) then it's doubtful that Kent is up to such shenanigans.
I don't want to speak for TenKay but something tells me that it's highly unlikely that he is a shareholder here. Props to you, TK!
It also takes away time from their ability to close all sorts of new insurance deals. Maybe deals that will actually generate operating revenue. BTW, any idea what the only non-licensing revenue was for the 9 months? It shows as "PEPM" $ 1534. I'm not an insurance guy so maybe this is some sort of industry acronym??
Yes, time machine would be one of the explanations.
Let's see what the company decides is the explanation that they will put forth.
It will be interesting.
And Oak River employees are working without salaries based on the lack of any expenses for salaries and wages.
I go back to my previous "explanation" that perhaps Kent owns the intellectual property on which ORT is based and he may be the employer of record for those working in the office. Thus, the "management fee."
Sort of allows Kent to demand anything he wants whenever he wants lest he decide to take his toys and leave the office void except for the flea market furniture we saw in the open house photos.
He can bring his IP wherever he likes whenever he likes. Maybe to a cleaner shell company without so many "hangers on."
I saw that. It's curious that (if we believe the "new" income statement) the Company pays no salaries or benefits.
Apparently those we saw in the open house photos were actors/actresses hired for the day.
This really is an interesting development.
You are assuming that they can sell the same asset that now belongs to someone else for the same amount in each of the next three quarters. I wonder how the buyer of that software feels about that.
That's an Eddie kind of transaction. Not something Linduff would do.
Or is it?
The office buildout now costs $ 200K or so less than before and the Company pays no salaries. Just management fees.
The IRS and other entities might be interested in that.
Revenue is a joke. It's a one time event...licensing of the software. Earlier reported to be 2.4 million now reported to be 1.3 million of which 1 million is still unpaid. OK.
Anyone who reads this as being sustainable quarterly revenue has no clue. They can't sell the software again in the 4th quarter and again in the 1st quarter of 2016. It's gone. Like a liquidation sale. Nothing left to sell except the tacky furnishings.
There is ZERO operating revenue.
Meanwhile the monthly expenses will go on regardless of the lack of revenue
This is a freight train about to crash into bankruptcy.
But they lied! Why would they lie? I liquidated my 401k and bought shares based on what they said. Who can I complain to?
One poor soul on the TD&Y board said he was counting on profits made there to pay for his cancer treatment.
Oy.
I'm loving the "Oracle of the OTC" moniker.
Remember how someone claimed that DMND was renting office space inside an office building that was owned by UPS?
Oh, the humanity.
I see that the "other Diamond" that some were confused about is looking to sell itself for over $ 1 billion. Too bad that is indeed "other."
Saw your PM. I can't reply. Fins will be replaced with new ones that don't look quite so ridiculous. Still not clear what entity they are for, but maybe the balance sheet will balance. Look for the video!
People in real businesses.
I'm no interior decorator but most of the furniture in that video looked like something picked up at a thrift store. Dining room table and chairs instead of conference room furniture? Maybe Kent really is looking out for his shareholders.
Big 3D Eye Roll.
Fixed it for you
This would be one of the only scenarios that makes sense.
Kent owns the IP. Without the IP ORT is essentially some walls, wires and furniture. Oh, and some contracts that they can't fulfill.
Kent takes 98% of ORT revenues in return for a license to use his IP.
Brilliant.
http://esearch.kendallad.org/
Search on KENT LINDUFF and you see what I presume is his personal residence. Owned by a family trust, BTW with Kent and Linduff as trustees. I know that property can be held in a trust for a variety of reasons: shielding from creditors is one of those reasons.
Nothing under OAK RIDGE in Kendall County.
Questions about the financials again. You want a balance sheet that balances? Go see Askmyaccountant.com
And if it does show that Kent is the property owner does that mean that it is an Oak River Technology asset?
BTW, shouldn't something like a deed be locked away in a safety deposit box? Having such a document at an open house seems a bit reckless.
Putting aside the pesky question of the relationship between ORT and TDEY it is entirely possible that Kent owns the building and is leasing it to ORT. One would think that this sort of transaction would be disclosed but if accuracy of that recent filing is any indication, then attention is to detail is not a Kent forte.
In fact, personal ownership of a building with the company leasing it back is not unusual in private industry. The goal is to reduce the Company's taxable income (and pick the pockets of partners and/or shareholders as appropriate) by paying large rents to insiders, paying big salaries and providing perks like Kent's Mercedes: all complements of his shareholders.
Maybe send out a tweet to Michael J Fox for an answer???
Per a prior theory, the takeover of TDEY was accomplished following the script of a Michael J Fox film about how "business is done in the real world."
There were weenies in buns along with Pabst Blue Ribbon served at last week's gathering so none of what you say has any possibility of being remotely true
Based on Eddie's criminal case from earlier this year it would seem that Eddie doesn't like to pay up until faced with some serious consequences. I don't know if the Texas Tollway (a private entity) has the authority to suspend car registrations the way public entities do.
We do know that legal proceedings indicate that Eddie and Kent don't like to pay their bills/refund money.
This gives them something in common. Besides this scam, of course.