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.
I fully understand what goodwill is.
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.
So? Beitling certainly didn't have the assets to pull that piddly little company into positive territory, even after discharging debt.
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.
Wrong.
There were a large amount of liabilities that were carried over from Bering Exploration, as I have already explained several times.
No you haven't. Feel free to list them and their amount.
Assumptions about the lack of volume during Breitling’s first year as a public company are also a bit misguided.
No they are not. If the price were high because of a shortage, dumping 10 million shares would move the market.
The volume would have been much higher if people were willing to dump shares as you claim.
Exactly, and the price would be lower.
I was not making any leaps when I claimed that Breitling was fully funded and profitable at the time they went public.
Yes you are. You are relying on financial statements that Breitling told people not to rely upon.
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.
Breitling said not to rely upon that report and yet you still do.
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.
So?
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.
No we haven't
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.
He didn't have a bigger footprint. He has never had much of an actual footprint and only through considerable research and years of his activity was I able to find some fairly dismal wells related to him.
I am not sure what Ultra has to do with anything, but now that you mention the company I am a little suspicious that a company that really had $2 trillion in assets could soon file bankruptcy over $4 billion. Energy prices didn't drop that much. If you have some point to make about the many companies that have or had phantom assets, it escapes me. But I don't have much knowledge of Ultra.
It does look like Ultra had a peak market value of around $15 billion in 2008. I wonder why it was trading at less than a hundredth of book value. It was a quick look, so maybe I missed something.
