InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 375
Posts 16982
Boards Moderated 4
Alias Born 03/07/2014

Re: Nano1 post# 14229

Tuesday, 03/17/2015 4:51:52 PM

Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:51:52 PM

Post# of 106837
"net loss" is NOT LOSS FROM OPERATIONS.

That PR line about "reduced net loss" blah, blah is only due primarily to a ONE-TIME debt being "forgiven" (aka written off) by a past creditor. When that ONE-TIME debt gets forgiven it gets moved from the "liabilities" side of the ledger to being a "gain" and thus is booked as a gain now, a one-time gain. That won't be there next time around- and in fact, if one looks from just the last 10-Q (Q-3) to this 10-K filing, a 3 month period, their "current liabilities" actually INCREASED back up by about $750K in just that 3 month period. A rapid increase getting added back to their obligations owed. (Back up to $11 mil or so, going the wrong direction again)

Back-out that ONE-TIME GAIN, and their "net loss" would have been larger than in 2013. It's as simple as that. It's just accounting gimmicks- it didn't affect their desperate cash situation in the slightest as they did not actually pay back the "forgiven" debt using any cash of their own. Thus their "true loss" situation reflecting that their expenses are far exceeding any ability to self-generate cash is much better indicated via looking at the LOSS FROM OPERATIONS (which would not include a one time gain on something like settlement of debt, or interest, etc) - it's much more reflective of their true operational losses, and THAT number was the largest in 5 yrs, going back through every 10-K filing since 2010.



There it is, right on their STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS.

NET LOSS FROM OPERATIONS:

2010 (3,266,030)

2011 (2,665,884)


2012 (2,534,843)

2013 (2,841,750)

2014 (3,529,452)
Most recent 10-K, just filed- their largest operational LOSS checking all 10-K filings back to 2010 when Tomas took over as CEO.