Breitling Energy Corp fka BECC

[reaper247]

Wow…FM 11, I don’t even know where to begin. LOL...

A simple outstanding liability is not the same thing as toxic debt. Ya’ll should probably do some more research on that before making guesses on how it all works.

I think there is a good chance that Breitling Oil and Gas was valueless at the time, since BECC had negative equity as of 12/31/2013.

You have to understand a couple of things here. A lot of publically traded companies, including NYSE/NASDAQ companies have total liabilities equal to or greater than, total reported assets. It does not mean that there is no value.

Also, the yearend financial report for the period 12/31/2013 that you are referring to, showing the stockholder deficit (or “negative equity”…LOL,) is actually a 10-KT, rather than a typical 10-K.

The “T” designation of the filing indicates that it is a transitional filing that can happen for several different reasons.

In the case of BECC, it is because it is the reverse merger that happened and the information in that financial statement contains the combined and consolidated financials of the two companies.

To understand how this works, one first has to realize that Breitling has only been public for a couple of years. Not over five years as some still claim.

There were a large amount of liabilities that were carried over from Bering Exploration, as I have already explained several times.

Assumptions about the lack of volume during Breitling’s first year as a public company are also a bit misguided.

The relatively small volume clearly demonstrates the lack of shares available, indicating that not many people actually wanted to sell. It is pretty typical with a stock that has a small public float.

The volume would have been much higher if people were willing to dump shares as you claim.

Instead, the PPS increased tenfold. That appreciation was more than a couple thousand dollars for a few savvy traders as you also claim.

I was not making any leaps when I claimed that Breitling was fully funded and profitable at the time they went public.

They existed for ten years as a private company without any need to sell shares. They were also profitable according to the quarterly financial report for the nine months ending Sept 2014.

As far as tickers being passed around like brewskis, it should be noted that most tickers are passed around by developmental stage companies that simply exist to sell shares and offer toxic debt.

We have already established beyond a doubt that Breitling is not a developmental stage company. Breitling was a profitable, fully funded company without any toxic debt, ten years in the making.

As you have stated, the only reason you have taken an interest here, is because the CEO of Breitling Energy BECC, Chris Faulkner, has more visibility as an industry advocate than someone like the CEO of Ultra Petroleum, Michael Watford.

Ultra Petroleum had assets of more than $2,958,000,000 and a share price of $30 in early 2014 before $WTIC collapsed.

It is interesting to me as to how Breitling Energy’s CEO Chris Faulkner, could have a bigger footprint in the oil and gas industry, than the CEO of a NYSE company that had over $2 Trillion in assets.

LOL, IMO and FWIW.