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.
Mary777 here's hoping the rumor is correct. still holding all my shares
Rory said nFusz is fully funded to maintain operations. When you interject a capital expenditure( outside of a revenue expenditure) it requires a short term loan ( a swing loan) to bridge the gap in order to move to a higher exchange. I see no problems here.
Excellent post Mary...
Hi Mary your conversation with SB was excellent. It gave me a better understanding of the process taking place. I have a question I would like to ask Steve regarding Sales vs shipments. I was a CFO in my previous life and I need to feel comfortable on the accounting for Sales.
Can you give me his contact info? If I do get in touch with him I will let you know what he says. Thank you. Desie (Still have all my shares 18.2M)
Mary.. that is the best recap of where the company stands today. This is why I continue to buy shares at these incredibly low prices. Fantastic
Go ONCI
My exact thought...he is waiting for the name/ticker change to announce deals
"You saw the bank account with the $7 mil in it?"...Was that a joke? ROFL
These were new orders will be shipped based on future releases as defined by the contracts. The Operating cycle dictates that new orders are scheduled for production based on released dates, then shipped, become part of Receivables and then based on contract terms, i.e. 30, 60, etc. days collected. The $ are then deposited into the bank account probably using a lock box system.
ONCI "the real deal"
It was not misleading..it was just a misunderstood classification of orders vs revenues . There were ..so ..far $25M of new orders (some converted to revenues in 2017). that will become REVENUES in 2018. And it is very possible the $25M will become $50M+ imo in 2018 based on the current orders being received, i.e $7M received in the past two weeks.
ONCI .."the real deal"
It is $25M in orders (added to a backlog) to be converted to revenue based on release dates. Most of these orders will ship (Sales) in 2018.
You do realize the market values a company's pps based on future expectations. Using the $22M in sales (order releases from current contracts) for 2018 the valuation is a lot higher (.045) But you must have known that already.
ONCI 'the real deal"
I would be very interested in a PM re phone call. Tks in advance
Excellent post Mary..here for the long haul
ONCI/HEXA "the real deal"
Goodbuddy...every time I read this update it absolutely blows my mind. The potential here is incredible. I started buying this stock @ .0026 after listening to Mary. I continued to buy more at .0018, .0012 and .001. Very happy with my decision to continue to buy. ONCI
Excellent post Mary...the potential here is incredible. it appears that October/November will be historic months for ONCI imo
Bought another 200K ..now at $13.7M
No just 1.4 billion reduction. he is reducing the authorized and the outstanding at the same time....fantastic news
rofl...good one
Excellent Mary...keep it coming.ONCI
Fantastic day ...not looking to sell(13.5M) anytime soon..just too many catalysts on the horizon with multiple pennies possible..very exciting times ahead
Go ONCI
Seriously...your the only joke. I suggest you tell your handlers it's not working...just a waste of time
RoFL..in total agreement. ONCI is going to be huge imo.
incredible developments. He is like a one man army. go ONCI
anxiously waiting...fantastic day
Based on the numbers a simple calculation shows:
..We have $2M in stock
..We have the capacity to produce $3M per wk or $12M per mo and $144M per year
if we get one of the large contracts (Ford,Chrysler, etc) $144M per year of production would not be enough to accommodate the projected sales levels.
Where does that take the PPS? Unbelievable. Go ONCI
Steve is unbelievable....ex CFO that had to deal with incompetent Sales force that could not close deals...it is second nature to this guy
Go ONCI
WOW....Fantastic news..GO ONCI
I am beginning to think .05+ is not out of line here. Way to go Steve
Go ONCI
Excellent post Randy..looking forward to all the good news..it appears my 14M shares are gong to do very well..Thanks for posting
Hope you & Farmer are right
long OWCP
I guess I am one of the 20...4m shares and holding
#113...105,000 long
picked up another 20K this morning....471K now
a bit early for this...my estimates for 3rd qtr production #s
t...28.5
n...28
total ....56.5
4th qtr in the 60s
a bit early for this...my estimates for 3rd qtr production #s
t...28.5
n...28
total ....56.5
4th qtr in the 60s
The 38,000 job # could be reduced to negative growth due to over estimates
The job market went ker-plop in May, which should send new college graduates to the beaches instead of gainful employment, and their tuition-paying parents to psychiatrists.
Let me get right to the bad news. And then I’ll give you even worse news, so you’d better pull up a beach chair.
The Labor Department reported on Friday that the nation’s economy added only 38,000 jobs in May. The experts expected a modest gain of 150,000 jobs, so the actual figure is like setting off a bomb at a gas station.
May’s gain was not only well below the consensus but much lower than the previous two months, whose figures were revised sharply downward. In total, there were actually 59,000 fewer new jobs in March and April than previously estimated.
But it gets even worse than that.
Of those 38,000 new jobs the government said were created in May, only 25,000 were in the private sector, which means that if it weren’t for the fact that governments somewhere found money to hire people, then growth would have been reduced by nearly a third.
And it gets even gloomier than that.
As I’ve been telling you, springtime is when the Labor Department assumes that there are jobs being created by newly “born” companies that can’t be surveyed in the regular way. Washington guesses at how many jobs these new companies might be adding.
In May, the Labor Department added 224,000 of these make-believe jobs to the total before seasonal adjustments. After these figures are adjusted, the guesstimate probably added 40,000 or so jobs to the headline figure.
So the 38,000 number that you’ll see in the headline is very misleading. The economy probably lost a small number of jobs last month after this wild estimate is eliminated. Next month the government will probably revise the May numbers down significantly.
Indeed, the 59,000 downward revision to the March and April number is likely the result of the Labor Department correcting its assumptions for those months.
Curiously, even as the job market is weakening — each of the last four months has shown less gains — the Labor Department has been boosting its guesstimates this year with the presidential election in full swing.
Before the latest lull, job growth had been much stronger than the overall economy, puzzling many Wall Street observers. They’ve questioned whether economic data like the measurement of Gross Domestic Product might be inaccurate.
As I’ve been saying, it is the employment statistics that are inaccurate, mainly because of ineptitude in collecting the data and overly optimistic assumptions that make the job market look healthier than it really is.
Remember, the expansion of the job market is not only necessary but it’s also the natural state for any economy. In fact, it’s believed that job growth of 150,000 a month is necessary just to get new workers into the flow as well as absorb people who have been laid off.
May’s 38,000 new jobs won’t only destine new college grads to a summer of unwanted leisure, but it will also leave the rolls of the unemployed undented — although you couldn’t tell that from the craziest figure put out by the Labor Department on Friday: the unemployment rate.
Even as job growth stalled, the government said that the nation’s unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent from 5 percent. That figure is so odd that even Pollyanna’s optimistic sister wouldn’t brag about it.
The May jobs report just blew away that cover and the possibility of a June rate hike seems to have evaporated.
As my readers already know, the unemployment rate is a perverse measurement of the economy because of the way it is calculated by the Labor Department. When people get so discouraged that they stop looking for work, they are no longer considered unemployed in the eyes of the government.
That’s what happened in May when a large number of people again left the workforce — and probably not because they are retiring en masse. That exodus also reduced the nation’s already low labor participation rate by another 0.2 percentage points.
It’s also interesting that the Labor Department chose to start its press release with the drop in the unemployment rate even though the weak job growth is really all that anyone was paying attention to.
The extremely disappointing job growth in May is already causing a lot of problems. For one thing, the stock market declined sharply on the number even though job growth was so bad that it caused grave doubts about whether the Federal Reserve will be able to raise interest rates in June.
The stock market doesn’t like rate hikes, so the job report would have been taken as good news if Wall Street wasn’t so concerned about the economy and the effect on corporate profits.
Janet Yellen’s Fed wants to raise rate and needs to raise them, but it can’t do so if the economy is looking too weak. Up until yesterday, the Fed seemed to have the go-ahead for a June rate hike because GDP, the broadest measure of the economy’s growth, seemed to be recovering from a horrible first three months of 2016.
And while the economy is far from booming, the GDP’s growth, an annual rate of around 2.5 percent in the second quarter, might have given the Fed enough cover to make its move.
The May jobs report just blew away that cover and the possibility of a June rate hike seems to have evaporated.
FILED UNDER CRUDELE , FEDERAL RESERVE , JOBS REPORT , UNEMPLOYMENT
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
FacebookTwitterGoogleEmailCopy
READ NEXT Walmart wants to deliver groceries to your door
SPONSORED STORIES
Harry Dent Warns: "This Is Going To Be Worse Than 1931!"
Economy and Markets
Why 81% Of Employers are Looking to Offer Financial Literacy Programs
ADP Retirement
The Chilling Thing I Found Out About My Retirement Plans
The Huffington Post
Caddy’s Best-Seller is New and Renamed
Motor Trend
Class of 2017: New Cars Ready to Roll
Kelley Blue Book
The New 2016 Crossovers
Yahoo Search
Recommended by
AROUND THE WEB
The Drastic Measure One Producer Took to Keep SJP Thin
People.com
Clinton Should Concede to Sanders Before FBI Reveals Findings
Huffingtonpost.com
'Downton Abbey' Star's Fiance Dead at 34
Aol.com
Jared Fogle Divorce Documents Reveal Wife's Disgust Over Charges
Aol.com
The Fate of Will Smith's 'Independence Day' Character Revealed
EW.com
Shakespeare's Grave Scan Reveals Stunning Discovery
Aol.com
Powered By ZergNet
MOST POPULAR THIS WEEK 1
Why I had to escape my Ivy League life and disappear
Why I had to escape my Ivy League life and disappear
2
Inside Bill Clinton's relationship with his 'very good friend'
Inside Bill Clinton's relationship with his 'very good friend'
3
Murder victim's father goes nuts on serial killer in court
Murder victim's father goes nuts on serial killer in court
4
Johnny Manziel found in the first place you'd look
Johnny Manziel found in the first place you'd look
5
Teacher on the run after 13-year-old allegedly gets her pregnant
Teacher on the run after 13-year-old allegedly gets her pregnant
6
Disney execs in a panic over upcoming 'Star Wars' film
Disney execs in a panic over upcoming 'Star Wars' film
SHARE SELECTION
TRENDING NOW
IN BUSINESS
14,151
Ugly jobs report is even worse than it looks
Jewelry giant accused of swapping real stones for fakes
3,733
Ugly jobs report is even worse than it looks
3,097
Martin Shkreli hit with another criminal charge
COLUMNISTS
John Crudele Ugly jobs report is even worse than it looks
Ugly jobs report is even worse than it looks
Claire Atkinson Ugly jobs report is even worse than it looks
ABC News' Dan Abrams celebrates his 50th birthday
Keith J. Kelly Ugly jobs report is even worse than it looks
Tribune's former CEO Jack Griffin starts banking career
SEE ALL COLUMNISTS
NOW ON
‘Pure Nude Yoga’: Actual Workout Or Masturbation Material? (Answer: Sorta Both)
SEE ALL
I believe our impairment charges related to the excess cost capitalized with namoya and not with the price of gold. there should be no impairment charges going forward (imo) since costs related to namoya are now expensed as opposed to being capitalized. curious as what they used as the price of gold to value their assets!!!
Write-Downs: Death Sentence or Opportunity?
">
For many primary gold producers, Q213 was a breathtakingly bad quarter. It wasn't so much the massive drop in earnings many reported—those had been, for the most part, expected—but the so-called "impairment charges" announced.
(Impairment is the opposite of appreciation, that is, the reduction in quality, strength, amount, or value of an asset. "Impairment charges" means that a company reduces or "writes down" the value of the assets on its books.)
The gold price averaged $1,630.45 in Q1 this year, falling to $1,413.64 in Q2. The downturn squeezed profit margins, obviously, but it did the greatest damage to the value of many company assets that are based on gold.
But what will happen to those same assets if the gold price is on the rise again? What does it mean for us as investors? I'll answer these and more questions below.
First, here's a look at the amount of write-downs the six largest primary gold producers announced last quarter.
The explanation the companies gave for these impairment charges was essentially the same in every case: short- and long-term gold price assumptions that hadn't panned out. Total losses for just these six producers were $23.1 billion. That's a lot of dough to send to money heaven, for a relatively small industry. Food for thought.
Here's what you need to know as an investor in this sector.
How does an impairment charge occur?
In public companies, management must report a reasonable value of company assets to shareholders and the public. If labor or other production costs rise, they may have to reassess the value of the company's assets.
In this case, the price of gold—the product many of our companies sell—dropped 13.3% in just three months, and did not seem likely to rebound immediately. Of course, that changed the amount of earnings investors could expect from a gold mine. Companies had to revise the net present value of projects in development, or the book value of mines in production, with the new reality for gold in mind.
But isn't gold always fluctuating?
Yes, but the accounting is (meant to be) conservative. The last thing any management team wants is to be forced to tell the market that its projections were wrong and profits are much less than anticipated—or worse, nonexistent. Shares would plummet, management would have a major credibility problem (perhaps a legal one as well), and heads would roll.
What companies are supposed to do is look out to the horizon and project the lowest (safest) reasonable price assumptions they can, for the foreseeable future. Some are better at it than others, and some mining companies that used too aggressive price assumptions in their economic studies ended up, in the worst-case scenario, abandoning projects.
On the other hand, it's just as bad if management overreacts to temporary price swings. A long-term view should position the company so that short-term price fluctuations—up or down—don't seriously affect the value of a project. In other words, they try to allow for normal volatility.
How do they know how much to write down?
If management believes prices have changed so much that it affects the value of company assets, they conduct a formal "impairment test." If an asset doesn't pass, the amount of the charge is the difference between the old book value and the recoverable value, or the fair market value for the asset at that point in time.
So the companies that had no write-downs are more conservative?
The better ones are—others may simply be refusing to face the fact that gold is still below the three-year trailing average that was typically used as a price assumption. A cautious gold company that, say, valued an asset assuming $1,100 gold should not have needed to file an impairment charge last quarter (all other things being equal). Gold has averaged $1,303.33 so far in Q3, well above the price that returns were projected from.
For example, major gold producers Yamana and Agnico-Eagle were able to avoid impairment charges last quarter. As the chart above shows, all producers currently rated a Best Buy in BIG GOLD had no write-downs. As an owner of these stocks, I was glad to see this. It also confirmed that we've selected management teams that are both shrewd and conservative.
What happens when a write-down turns into a write-off?
While a write-down is a mere reduction in value, a write-off eliminates that value altogether. For some companies, a project may not just be less profitable, but completely uneconomic at lower gold prices. If total production costs were $1,400 per ounce, for example, that project would have zero value at today's prices. This sometimes happens with low-grade mines.
This is the reason so many projects have been suspended or moved to the back burner over the last few months—and rightly so. We believe gold will move back up and hit new highs, but that's not the conservative stance corporate management should take, especially when deciding to invest billions of dollars building a large new mine.
These projects can be revived when gold prices go up again, but they will need to be reevaluated when things change, particularly regulatory and cost factors.
What happens if the price of gold goes back up?
In the past, companies were stuck. Until very recently, impairment charges were a one-way street. Once you took the charge, you lived with it. But there are some new rules that permit the accounting to go both ways.
These new international rules were instituted in 2011 and haven't yet been tested for higher values in the resource sector. But if the gold price recovers and there are strong reasons to believe it will stay there (something we see as highly likely), it's possible we could see some of these impairments reversed. That's what you might call a "write-up."
Here's an interesting consequence for speculators: Once a company has written down an asset, that loss no longer trickles down to the bottom line in the form of depreciation expense.
Suppose you have a mine written down to zero, because operations provide effectively zero return at lower prices, but the company keeps mining because management believes prices will go up, and mine closure would be both expensive and hard to reverse. Then prices do rise, and the mine starts making money hand over fist, with no depreciation to impact net income.
That's why it's so important to separate still-viable assets that are written down from those that really were based on foolish assumptions and are never likely to be profitable.
Should I sell my companies that reported write-downs?
Not necessarily. As I said above, it's not the end of the world if a company is forced to write down an asset. The question is whether the company will be able to survive the current price environment and have a shot at better profits in the future.
To know when to hold, fold, or be bold, sign up for a three-month trial to BIG GOLD, with full money-back guarantee.
Even with gold's steep correction, a handful of Best Buy companies in our portfolio had very impressive Q2 results—but despite their above-average performance, they are still severely undervalued. I expect them to do so well that I've added some of them to my own mother's portfolio (and she only allows for the safest bets).
Find out which stocks Doug Casey and his team see as the top performers in the recovery. You have nothing to lose—click here to try BIG GOLD for just $129 per year. If you don't absolutely love it, cancel within the first three months for a full refund.
hi all,
46,800
still a buyer...now 490k
hi all,
46,800
still a buyer...now 490k