InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 48
Posts 2221
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 01/28/2013

Re: Sandan post# 23220

Thursday, 05/28/2015 12:16:42 AM

Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:16:42 AM

Post# of 24848

Interesting question for BS/JZ/CORE people with intimate knowledge of the company...

Why is it that in the MARCH 2014 Pr stated that SCRC has secured a $200k order for Rapimed in China.... BUT in the spring 2015 slide presentation
it stated a $100K order.....

Can't BS keep his stories straight? Did they lose half the orser that isn't shipping??


IMO, this may be a ripple effect of one of the auditor's findings re: how SCRC is accounting for inter-company transactions. Unlike the ridiculous pumps by SCRC's own homophobic criminal JOSEPH ZAMPETTI and his fellow criminal CORE members that such transactions will allow SCRC to "ring the bell twice" and "double dip on the same revenues", this is likely another example of how US GAAP does not permit any such thing -- and, in fact, doesn't allow intercompany transactions to be recognized AT ALL (i.e. not even ONCE, let alone TWICE).

How is it that I arrived at such an opinion? Because if folks remember, the PO was from GlobalPharmaHub (GPH), a new 3rd party distributor/marketer that was assigned exclusive rights to the China/Hong Kong territories. And, although SCRC is one of three partners, SCRC's 37% stake in GPH effectively gives SCRC enough of a controlling interest. As such, it "may" be likely that the reason for the decrease in the reported amount of the $200k PO is because once you back out SCRC's 37% stake, the remaining net amount of $126k rounds to $100k.

To be clear, this is just a theory at this time as no one outside of SCRC and its auditors knows the true reason...

...OR...

the only other plausible explanation is that SCRC has actually shipped half of the original PO and so only $100k remains.

IMO, although it would be welcome news if this was the case, there are other indicators that this may not be the case. For example, in the presentation, there is also commentary that RapiMed distribution is still "pending approval", so it would be non-sensical for part of an order to be distributed if the ability to distribute is still pending approval. In addition, it is highly unlikely that given the multi-year buildup of anticipation and promotion of RapiMed hitting store shelves, that SCRC would fail to PR the momentous occasion that such an inaugural shipment would represent.


Curiouser and curiouser...